To Amnesty 5 Million

President Obama Delivers Remarks On Executive Action Immigration ReformIgnoring the brutal, historic slap-down angry American voters gave his party this month, President Obama unveiled plans for a unilaterally imposed amnesty that will shield an estimated 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.

Whether Republicans, now in possession of a thunderous mandate to fight Obama tooth and nail, will fight this despotic usurpation of the lawmaking powers of Congress remains to be seen.

Obama doesn’t care. He is pressing on, hoping to fill America with millions of new Democrat voters. And he’s going to kill American jobs in the process.

“We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules,” said the president. The address from the White House came yesterday, which just so happened to be Revolution Day (also known as Civil War Day) in Mexico.

“We expect those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded,” the president continued. Yet Obama went on to propose just such a reward in the form of a special “deal” for unlawful immigrants:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

Strangely, Obama, who routinely flouts the Constitution, still acknowledges some limits to his power. The deal, he said, does not apply to recently arrived illegal aliens or illegals who have yet to sneak into the country.

“It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive,” Obama said. “Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

Whether the benefits illegal aliens receive are as generous as benefits that citizens receive is beside the point. Illegal aliens are already eligible for extensive benefits from the government and Obama is a big believer in getting poor people addicted to welfare. No serious person believes illegals won’t have access to social programs.

In the address Obama played semantic games. What he’s doing is not an amnesty, he said:

Amnesty is the immigration system we have today. Millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time. That’s the real amnesty, leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair.

The former part-time adjunct constitutional law lecturer has it wrong. A failure to enforce a law isn’t tantamount to amnesty. Amnesty is an official governmental act of forgiveness that excuses a violation of the law. Being in a state of legal limbo in which law enforcement hasn’t yet called your number isn’t the same as amnesty.

Nor is the immigration system broken, at least not in the way Obama means.

When progressives say the system is broken, they mean it is functioning in a less than optimal manner, failing to capture every single prospective illegal alien available to wade across the Rio Grande or walk across the nation’s largely undefended border with Mexico. To them, immigration policy is a taxpayer-subsidized get-out-the-vote scheme for Democrats and the best reform they could imagine would be to abolish America’s borders altogether. Obama’s new amnesty plan is a step in this direction.

It is also a profoundly cynical move that rewards lawbreaking and begets future immigration amnesties. It will spell electoral death for the Republican Party in coming years because Latinos, who are believed to comprise the bulk of the illegals, have traditionally shown a strong preference for the Democratic Party and its left-of-center public policies. The amnesty for 5 million illegals is likely just the beginning. The government recently issued a procurement order seeking a contractor to make as many as 34 million immigration documents over the coming five years.

During his address, Obama quoted the Book of Exodus, saying:

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.

But the immigrants in question are not the legal immigrants of the past who followed the rules when they came to this country. They are invaders who broke the law and who continue to break the law by being here. America is not, nor has it ever been, a nation of illegal immigrants.

To qualify for relief from deportation, individuals will have to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, and pay a processing fee, according to a White House handout. Applications can’t be filed until early next year.

Parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents as of the date of the announcement are eligible, provided that they are not “enforcement priorities” and have been present in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010. Also eligible are individuals who arrived in this country before Jan. 1, 2010 and before turning 16 years old, regardless of how old they are now. Processing times for certain categories of green card applicants will be accelerated. Recent arrivals who entered the country after Jan. 1 of this year will not be eligible to apply.

Obama lapdogs were ecstatic about the planned amnesty.

Echoing Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) who absurdly compared Obama’s executive order to the Emancipation Proclamation, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked, “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?”

Except that the Emancipation Proclamation freed categories of slaves, innocent people victimized by an abhorrent institution, not illegal aliens who took it upon themselves to invade the country and abuse the goodwill of Americans. The only thing the two executive orders have in common is that a president signed them.

Republicans are deeply split on the amnesty issue so anyone expecting Republican lawmakers to give Obama a well-deserved rhetorical mauling two weeks after the GOP crushed Democrats in midterm elections will be disappointed in coming days. That’s not what the emasculated party of Lincoln does because it is terrified of being called racist for opposing the nation’s first (half) black president.

Despite running a virtually content-free campaign, on Nov. 4 the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, winning at least 53 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 244 out of 435 seats. In the new year Republicans will control at least 31 state governors’ mansions and at least 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber). In at least 23 states Republicans will control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. Democrats can make the same claim about only 7 states.

The election was arguably, depending on the psephological metrics used, the worst showing for the Democratic Party in its history.

Despite the newly enfeebled status of the Democrats, the House GOP’s response was predictably weak. Instead of righteously inveighing against the grave threat that Obama’s actions pose to the republic, on Twitter the official House Republican feed meekly exhorted the president to cooperate with them.

“We need a real fix, not a quick fix. Let’s fix our broken immigration system together,” read one GOP tweet. Another said, “Mr. President, stop acting alone. Let’s work together.” Maybe the GOP’s communications professionals would like to roast some s’mores and sing Kumbaya with the president.

And Obama must be quaking in his jackboots. Even after six years of getting beaten to a pulp, constantly sucker-punched by the nation’s Alinskyite president, congressional Republicans still aren’t anywhere close to grasping what he really is. They continue to treat Obama as if he’s a legitimate, sincere president who actually wants to do what’s best for America. They foolishly believe Obama cares about his falling public approval numbers and his presidential legacy. They refuse to acknowledge that he is a radical revolutionary figure hellbent on destroying, or in his own words, fundamentally transforming, the U.S. They actually seem to think Obama is interested in negotiating with them to find policy solutions that benefit the country. Many elected GOPers appear not to have an inkling that embracing amnesty is the same as signing a death warrant for the Republican Party.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who supports amnesty in principle but is under intense pressure from conservative lawmakers, is trying to put down a rebellion in his own House GOP conference. Although Obama has previously protested that he is not a king or an emperor, “he’s sure acting like one,” Boehner, who may face a challenge to his speakership in January, said yesterday.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was characteristically vague.

“If President Obama acts in defiance of the people and imposes his will on the country, Congress will act,” he said.

Retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told USA Today earlier this week that Obama’s amnesty could spark civil unrest. “The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation.”

“You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy … You could see violence,” Coburn said. Obama will be behaving like “an autocratic leader that’s going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” he said. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) appears to have taken the wrong lesson from the electoral bloodbath this month that set Democrats back 150 years. Although voters delivered the message that they want Obama stopped, Rogers interprets the election as a mandate for surrender.

“I believe a major consequence of this election is a loud and clear mandate from the American people for Washington to stop the gridlock, work together across ideological lines and start producing real accomplishments on their behalf,” Rogers wrote in an op-ed.

Rogers wants Congress to pass a long-term funding bill called an omnibus appropriations bill before the government’s authority to spend money expires on Dec. 11. It would keep the government operating for the rest of the federal fiscal year which runs to Sept. 30, 2015.

There will be “an extraordinary amount of work to do when the new Congress convenes in January … but there simply won’t be the political bandwidth available to address these pressing issues if Congress is bogged down in old battles and protracted to-do lists.”

Some Republicans have proposed defunding the parts of the government that would process amnesty-related paperwork.

Separately, Rogers has made the absurd suggestion that Congress approve a big, all-encompassing spending bill now and then rescind amnesty-relating funding next year. Rescissions happen but they’re relatively rare. Why bother giving Obama a green light to proceed with the amnesty now in the hope of slamming on the brakes in the new year?

The real problem with enacting an omnibus spending bill, according to Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is that such a funding measure “would enable Obama to complete his lawless amnesty scheme.”

Rogers insists that the amnesty cannot be stopped through the appropriations process.

It would be “impossible to defund President Obama’s executive order through a government spending bill,” House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing said yesterday, explaining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is funded by user fees.

It is a facile, easily disproved argument. USCIS, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is part of the federal government. It was created by Congress and Congress can do anything it wants to it. It can give it money, take money away from it, give it a spanking, or order it to stand on one leg and bark like a dog.

In a development overshadowed by the unveiling of the amnesty, DHS announced yesterday that it will grant “temporary protected status” to up to 8,000 people from the Ebola-afflicted African countries of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone. These visitors may apply for work permits for 18 months. Unlike ordinary recipients of temporary protected status, these Ebola refugees will not be allowed to travel to their home countries and then return to the U.S., in order to prevent the spread of Ebola.

Or so the story goes. If Obama can find a way to let them stay in the U.S., he’ll do it.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Ted Kennedy

    Hey,Obama voters, was this the “hope and change ” you were looking for? Did you have HOPE that Obama would CHANGE the United Sates into a lawless third-world country? Si si puede!

    • Anonymous

      The age of the white man and woman is over.

      • Ted Kennedy

        For the Democratic Party, you are correct.

      • Guest

        Racist dribble.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Dumb and Dumber To.

    • Blastergamer

      How about you forgot that white Americans were immigrants over 200 years ago.

      • Ted Kennedy

        What’s your point?

      • gerry

        Nlot forgotten but at the time there were rules.You want to be invaded this is your choice.By the way,why at every US port of entry do we have to show a passport?Are you racist?Discrimate againts anybody who is not a Latino.

      • MukeNecca

        And therefore,… what?
        Where they illegals? Whose law did they break?

    • gerry

      It is an insult to most of the third -world countries.Until few days ago the US was known as the Obama republic,rank well below a banana republic.now it is a Calipat with Caliph Hussein Iznogood.Hey Obama stupid voters,what part of stupid you don’t understand?

  • blackelkspeaks

    The world awaits the response of the recently enabled Republicans to this unconstitutional usurpation of power by B. Hussein Obola. More than just the success or failure in the 2016 elections hinges on the actions of the next session of Congress. The very fate of the nation is now endangered. If this lawless act is left unanswered by the Republicans, then it can truly be said that the political entity known as the United States of American operating under the Constitution and the Rule of Law is absolutely dead and gone.

  • Swede_P

    I was too distracted by the title to read much of this article. Since when is “amnesty” a verb, as in “to amnesty”?

    • JayWye

      “amnestize”? is that what you’re looking for?

      • Swede_P

        ;0) Good one. Seriously, though, I don’t think “to give amnesty” or “to grant amnesty” would have been to large for the heading. Well, I have since read the article and it has something important to say. I will therefore let it go this time.

  • I_Am_Me

    If the paid off and cowardly Representatives and Senators of both parties let this defecation upon the rule of law stand, then it becomes the peoples’ responsibility to restore the Constitution and reverse this backslide to monarchy.

    Take note that the Chamber of Commerce has their smelly fingers all over this both on the low paid side and the high paid tech side. Hotels, big ag, meat processors, and tech giants are all implicated.

    Fascistic elitism is our current destiny. Will you stand by and watch your liberties evaporate, future slaves?

    • truebearing

      “If the paid off and cowardly Representatives and Senators of both parties let this defecation upon the rule of law stand, then it becomes the peoples’ responsibility to restore the Constitution and reverse this backslide to monarchy.”

      It has been our responsibility all along. None of this would be happening but for the laziness, cowardice, self-indulgence, and moral decline of the American people. The Left has been watching and waiting, encouraging our moral decay at every opportunity. We, individually, are all responsible for allowing them their success. Now we either get moral clarity, and the courage that goes with it, and fight this tyranny with everything we have, or we will lose everything. By “everything” I mean everything, including our lives. Once in power, leftists and Muslims do the exact same thing…kill those who opposed them.

      • hiernonymous

        There you go with the “fight to the death” rhetoric. When do you plan to begin?

        • truebearing

          Ef U. If I want any crap out of you, I’ll squeeze your head.

          • hiernonymous

            “How do you know I haven’t already started?”

            It’s the warm breeze blowing out of Wisconsin, mostly. Though I grant it’s a charming thought that you might be out there giving your all for the revolution and nobody has noticed. Shades of “The Mouse That Roared,” absent the Q Bomb.

            “Still smarting from that observation about your skills as a military analyst?”

            I wasn’t aware that you’d ever approached the military closely enough to observe anyone’s military skills. If you seek to wound, try making ‘observations’ of something you have not seen from such a very safe distance.

          • truebearing

            “the warm breeze blowing out of Wisconsin?”

            So you’re a geographical, meteorological idiot, too. We haven’t had any “warm breezes” originating from Wisconsin lately. Thanks for the laugh.

          • hiernonymous

            Having a conversation with you is like fencing with jello. The satisfaction of seeing the rapier slide home is tempered by the realization that the jello can be skewered a thousand times and never recognize it. My mistake; the spoon is the more appropriate tool, but I lack the patience. Let me give it a shot now:

            The warm breeze in question, my blissfully giggling friend, is the hot air blowing from wherever you sit at a keyboard.

          • IdahoFireFlyer

            Remember, my hubristic friend, that most people see posts like yours as small piles of vomit that they can quickly step around. But when the same vomitus post appears multiple times, you force people here to slosh through a virtual lake of spew. Ironically, this will not only make more people like you even less, it will decrease the odds that someone who might actually share your world view will do so publicly.

          • hiernonymous

            “But when the same vomitus[sic] post appears multiple times…”

            What are you talking about? What post have I pasted multiple times?

          • hiernonymous

            Crickets? I’ve looked for any post of mine that I’ve posted multiple times; I’m afraid the closest I can come up with was a long one that hung up and that I split into two shorter posts. Has that been disturbing you all this time, or did you mean something – or, perhaps, someone – else?

          • IdahoFireFlyer

            While the chunks may change, it is still the same spew. By assuming I meant multiple posts, you assumed. Thanks for the rent free space in your empty head.

          • hiernonymous

            “…when the same…post appears multiple times…”

            ‘Multiple’ is generally understood to mean more than once. It’s not much of an assumption.

            I suppose you are living in my head in the same way that rain lives in my head when I open an umbrella, or that dog droppings live in my head when I adjust my stride to avoid dirtying my shoes. It’s a small ambition you’ve got there.

          • IdahoFireFlyer

            Listen up dumazz.
            WHILE THE CHUNKS MAY CHANGE, IT IS STILL THE SAME SPEW.
            Chunks=words
            Spew=content.
            You don’t read very well do you?
            This has been bugging you for quite some time hasn’t it? Trolling getting a little lonely is it?
            Why don’t you go hang out at the garbage heap of history. That’s where all the other liberals/communists and Obola lovers are these days.

          • hiernonymous

            IFF: “But when the same vomitus post appears multiple times”

            H: “What post has appeared more than once?

            IFF: Ermm…ummm…well, maybe not the same post, but, umm, the same ideas…yeah, that’s the ticket?

            Nice attempt to walk back your original dishonest accusation. Retraction accepted.

          • IdahoFireFlyer

            OK VOMIT ZOMBIE.
            The east coast liberal moron who just, quite, almost understands English after how many semesters on mommy and daddies’s dime?
            I will esplain for your substandard foundational understanding.
            No matter what words you use.
            No matter how you phrase your talking points.
            It is the same old tired nonsense we have been hearing from Bolshevik agitators since the Paris Commune.
            Your young, inexperienced, indoctrinated, stupid rear end, doesn’t have the intelligence to have studied history. You are what is known as an, “useful idiot.”
            Drop out.
            Tune in.
            Turn off.
            Please take yourself out of the gene pool.
            No retraction or redaction will be forthcoming my simple minded moron.

          • hiernonymous

            “No retraction or redaction will be forthcoming my simple minded moron.”

            No further retractions or redactions? Excellent. It only took you 4 attempts to say something that was honest, if still stupid.

            Remember your complaint about making assumptions? Suffice to say that having that in mind as I read your post kept me chuckling.

          • truebearing

            Don’t blame me for your pathetic attempts at humor. If you were a better writer, you might have been able to pull off your pedestrian joke, but instead were forced to explain it…yet more proof of your narcissism.

            Your comment did turn out to be funny, however inadvertently.

          • hiernonymous

            Of course.

          • hiernonymous

            The warm breeze in question, my blissfully giggling friend, is the hot air blowing from wherever you sit at a keyboard.

            (And thank you for confirming the extent to which this struck home, and the extent to which you are unable to respond on your own merits. I’ll accept that as a concession that you understand your limitations.)

          • hiernonymous

            “How do you know I haven’t already started?”
            It’s the warm breeze blowing out of Wisconsin, mostly. Though I grant it’s a charming thought that you might be out there giving your all for the revolution and nobody has noticed. Shades of “The Mouse That Roared,” absent the Q Bomb.
            “Still smarting from that observation about your skills as a military analyst?”
            I wasn’t aware that you’d ever approached the military closely enough to observe anyone’s military skills. If you seek to wound, try making ‘observations’ of something you have not seen from such a very safe distance.

        • Doc2Go

          It can hardly be called rhetoric. The bullets exchanged by both sides in any revolution are hardly rhetorical. Fighting with everything you’ve got is a decision, which can be entered into at any point up to the end of a person’s life. Do not write off the American proclivity for shooting people, as they are better prepared, supplied, and trained than at any other point in history. When to begin will probably be determined in flashpoint fashion, as a crystallising consensus. Do not criticise inaction to this point, as the catalysing event has not yet come to pass.

          -Doc

          • hiernonymous

            Doc, no disrespect intended to those who commit to a cause, but there’s an awful lot of hot air blowing through the fiber optic cables these days. I’ll tip my hat to those who have done something, not those who talk about all the something’s they’ll do someday.

          • Doc2Go

            Well, Mate…Americans have reliably answered large scale violence with larger scale violence. Where the survival of one’s nation, and its Representative form of Republic is concerned, real men tend to adopt an all or nothing range of commitments. Millions can go from posting on FB to the the corner of Walk and Don’t Walk (with a rifle), in a matter of thirty seconds. From that point, it might be months or even years, before you will get to tip your hat. Doubting the sincerity and commitment of patriots has been the undoing of many a tyrant, great and small. Just my observation and opinion, you understand.

            -Doc

    • gerry

      The people will hbave to do it.

  • BMS

    King Obama has once again thumbed his nose at the people of America. The laws, he was elected to enforce go by the wayside so he can try and score points with his Democratic base. Does anyone believe that he won’t make these five million illegals citizens? And what about the other seven million that he did not mention. Shortly he will say that they too have to have their families whole and millions more will come charging over the border, which we all know he WILL NOTsecure. He has lied to the American people over and over again during his presidency. He says one thing and does another. He is a disgrace to the Office of the Presidency. Hopefully Americans will think twice before they vote for another community organizer who speaks well and has a nice smile but no business or foreign policy experience and who feels HIS agenda is what is right for the “stupid” Americans who can’t make the right decisions for themselves.

    • JEANLLowe

      By doing this ­online job you can f­ulfill your ­dreams. Imagine, you ha­ve mo­re time for yo­ur frien­ds and fami­ly­, for your hobbie­s a­nd tra­vels. The o­nly thing you­ need is a compu­ter and an interne­t connection. By doing this job you are n­ot tied to the ­hous­e or any place, and the money is coming. This is not a spam or a scam and you can be sure o­f that­ by­ f­ollowi­ng ­this­ link. . -> VISIT HERE TO LEARN MORE!!! <-

      It s­ounds un­believable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.

    • Anonymous

      The age of the white man and woman is over. Thank goodness.

      • Ted Kennedy

        Racist!

        • Annette Rogers

          Tr­­y ou­­t h­­ow t­­­o m­­ak­e a de­­­ce­nt i­­nco­­me e­­ver­­­y mo­­­nt­­­h… Af­­­te­r be­in­­g w­­it­­­ho­­­ut wo­­­r­­k fo­­r s­­­ix m­­onth­­s, I fo­­­un­­d a j­­o­­b o­v­er t­he we­­bsi­­te i f­­ou­­nd o­n-li­­ne, a­nd n­ow i a­m ha­­pp­­ie­r th­­an ev­er.I a­m ge­­­tti­­ng p­­ai­­­d aro­­un­d 12­k/mo­nth­ly n­ow. Y­o­­­u c­a­n d­­­o i­­­t t­­­­o­o!
          -> CL­I­C­K O­­N L­I­­NK “MO­RE” O­­N TH­­IS W­EB­SI­TE FO­R PRO­OF <-

      • MukeNecca

        Yes! There are signs in heaven clearly saying that humanity will be ushered into the Age of Basketball next week!

      • Guest

        More racist dribble from a racist.

        • Edward E

          ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

          “Anti-racists” SAY they are against white racists, white racism, and white privilege.

          What they are REALLY against is white culture, white civilization, and white people.

          They SAY they want a world without “hate”, without “racism”.

          What they REALLY want is a world without white people.

          What they REALLY want is a world without YOU.

          What they REALLY want is White geNOcide!

          Anti-racist is a >codeword< for anti-White

      • gerry

        Can hardly wait to have another Mexico,Somalia a cesspool.

      • Secret Person

        LOL I’ve noticed that all the latino and black run countries are soooo successful. /sarc

        • JayWye

          the British were the only colonial power that left most of it’s colonies with decent governments. Spain,France,Italy,and Germany did not. Spanish and French former colonies are all terrible messes. All of Africa is a mess,but British-run S.Africa was the best of the continent. Rhodesia a close second. (not anymore,as Zimbabwe..)

          • rebaaron

            Nobody ever left an Arab country with a decent government. Islam guarantees indecency.

          • Doc2Go

            Amen. So say we all.

            -Doc

  • Poptoy1949

    Lawless he has been for some time now. Arrogant and blatant has now arrived after the Anger Spell of Total Defeat caused by the Midterms. He has been rejected by the American People and now he will punish them with this, “in your face” behavior of taking care of everybody but….”Americans”. In Plain Language he is Pi$$ed !

    • rebaaron

      He is dangerous.

      • Poptoy1949

        I do agree. Without a doubt the MOST dangerous to have ever been elected to a seat in Washington, D.C. in the History of this Country.

    • knowshistory

      it is possible to excuse the stupidity of voters in 2008. voters, after all, are not known for education, smarts, self preservation (except for the drive to preserve the welfare check), or societal preservation. they are easily influenced by our populations’ enemies, the media, and the democratic party. forgive them for their stupidity in 08, when they chose a self avowed enemy of our population over a fool. there is no excuse for ’12, when a large portion of our population, augmented by the dead, illegal, and fictitious voters, reelected a KNOWN muslim enemy or our population, and rejected a fool that did not hate our legal population. this is inexcusable. to survive, America must get rid of a large, uneducable, hostile mass of anti-American traitors: the fools, traitors, criminals, and frauds who reelected a known enemy of our population. is this going to happen. sadly, no.

  • http://johnnyangeladvocacygroup.net JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

    Mr. Vadum misses the point, though most likely knows what it is. ANY ISSUE can now,with not upsetting the public too much,be instituted by lawlessness !! It is a Constitutional issue !! The issue itself is secondary. The racist La Raza types don’t care about the US Constitution !! They would be MOST HAPPY if we turned over California to them and Mexicans ONLY and all white,black and yellow people left the state. These are ANARCHISTS at heart !! There is a certain mindset of ALL GROUPS that disrupt society if their cause is evil. That is evil acts will follow evil thoughts. They are propagating false information creating evil thoughts hence evil deeds, much like Islamic jihad. I wouldn’t be surprised to see these anarchy groups combine and partner with radical Islam to begin to OVERTHROW this country. Believe me…ITS HAPPENING ALREADY, check out latest Ferguson MO. stories. AWAKE AMERIKA !!!

  • muchiboy

    From a Canadian perspective,I understand some of your concerns.Back in the Trudeau years,our Prime Minister introduced legislation that ,for all intents and purposes,resulted in Amnesty for some 39,000 “illegal residents”.Later,up to 30,000 – 40,000 American conscientious objectors ,”draft dodgers” to you,were given special consideration.
    When the time came for my fiance to apply for landed immigrant status I was surprised at the hoops she had to jump through,seeing how I was a Canadian with a Federal job to boot.We joked she would have been better off coming just off-shore in a row boot as an illegal immigrant!Just sayin’.Still,we likely benefited from these immigrants,and most likely they and their now grown kids will be voting for Trudeau’s son,Justin.All in all,I think the decision was a good,decent compromise.

    • I_Am_Me

      We should build a human pipeline from Mexico to Canada then and we’ll see if you change your tune.

      But that is beside the point. The issue is monarchy versus a Constitutional Republic with separation of powers. I don’t know what compromise you are talking about. Obama’s royal decree had nothing to do with compromise, unless the mere utterance of words now means truth.

      • muchiboy

        What he,your President,is doing is both humane and lawful.

        • kasandra

          Neither.

        • I_Am_Me

          Do you understand the US Constitution? I’ll copy this tiny fragment for you in case you are curious. It happens to be Article I, Section 1, in other words, the first snippet after the preamble:

          All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

          • tagalog

            You forgot Article I, Section 8, which places the responsibility for immigration laws expressly in the hands of Congress.

          • I_Am_Me

            This is the section I’d like to see invoked:

            The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

          • paendragon

            Funny how it says “SHALL,” not “could” or “maybe should” (!)

            ;-)

        • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

          You don’t understand our Constitution. The President cannot simply declare that he won’t enforce a particular law (a violation of his oath of office), and most especially his decision not to enforce the law in a particular case does not invalidate or nullify the law. Congress makes the law, and if Barry wants the law changed he must get Congress to do it. Congress’ refusal to dance to Barry’s tune does not give him the power to make laws himself.

          • muchiboy

            “You don’t understand our Constitution.”
            Guilty.

            “Congress makes the law..”

            In this case,the People’s House isn’t making any law.As observed previously,the Tea Party has the GOP by the short and curlies.Through Gerrymandering it may have,by some accounts, protected itself somewhat from the large Spanish-American vote,e.g.Texas,but it is in a quandry.The Senate,more representitive of the minority language Spanish-Americans,is likely more ameniable to a workable compromise here.Again,I don’t envy your Republican Candidate here.The Spanish-American vote is problematic here.

          • tagalog

            It’s been held constitutional when the President (who is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States) to decide whether or not some federal law should be enforced or reduced in priority.

            It’s interesting that the American public has been clamoring for some years now that our immigration laws (a federal responsibility) be enforced first by establishing border security, then debating the treatment of the illegals who are here, while the President and his party have been fighting tooth and nail against that to the point of suing states that seek to enforce border security.

            It was interesting that President Obama’s first substantive remark in his recent speech was to claim that border security HAS been beefed up, in order to -apparently- garner public sympathy for his immigration policy.

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            The fact that Congress refuses to pass a law he wants does not give Obama or any other President the power to make that law himself. A government of divided powers is how we’ve maintained our freedom as long as we have.

          • JayWye

            Immigration law ALREADY EXISTS.
            it’s just not being enforced,DELIBERATELY.
            that is “dereliction of duty”.

        • kcsummer

          You’re obviously as ignorant and/or arrogant as Hussein is. SAYING IT IS LAWFUL does not make it so and if you don’t live here then please do us all a favor and $ T fU

        • Atikva

          Don’t talk about what you don’t understand.

          • truebearing

            Are you suggesting he remain mute? I couldn’t agree more. Mulchboy has oak bark between his ears.

          • Atikva

            Well, what else to expect from a dyed-in-the-wool leftist?

        • knowshistory

          the “president” is a criminal. he is convicted not only by the laws of our land, and the constitution, but by his own words. what is even more disturbing than the criminal action of a lawless thug who was reelected by fraud, is the large number of supposed citizens who are willing accomplices to his crime.

          • muchiboy

            It’s America and it’s called Democracy.God Bless America.

          • knowshistory

            what your hero is doing is the opposite of democracy, and has nothing to do with America, before he transformed it, that is.

          • muchiboy

            You’ll get your turn.Always do.But it will leave a legacy.Millions of Spanish Americans with a debt to Obama and the Democrats.Children and grandchildren won’t soon forget.

          • MukeNecca

            What is so good about “millions of Spanish-Americans with a debt to Obama and the Democrats” if it’s at the expense of millions of Americans? Their children and grandchildren won’t soon forget the damage Obama and Democrats inflicted on their country.

          • I_Am_Me

            You are a gullible sap.

            “humane and lawful”

            Nice order of adjectives. Humane? Yes. Lawful? No. It’s the oldest trick in the book. Get peoples emotions involved then sell the lie as the truth.

            Democracy with a monarch is a contradiction. Likely your entire worldview is a series of these contradictions.

            You are another half-human. A phony. The lesser gods laugh at your mindless emotional inanity.

          • muchiboy

            Eleven million illegals.Something has to be done.Tea Party got the GOP by the short and curles.Gerrymandering aside,your Presidential candidate is going to be between a rock and a hard place.Spanish-Americans are the fastest growing population in America.Gotta give credit to Obama,he’s playing this one like a Pro.

          • I_Am_Me

            I don’t dispute any of what you just wrote. The book Power Grab predicted this move and several more. The enemies of liberty are very, very hard at work these days and are doing well.

          • MukeNecca

            “Something has to be done”?
            Correct!
            First, keep them out.
            Second, allow only legals in.

          • JayWye

            America is a Constitutional REPUBLIC,not a democracy. Not any dictatorship,either. Congress makes the laws,not POTUS.

        • DontMessWithAmerica

          You are a very sick man. Get help.

          • JayWye

            he’s not sick,just ignorant. he does not understand how America works legally.

        • tagalog

          It may be arguably humane, it’s highly questionable whether it’s lawful.

          • Guest

            test

        • paendragon

          The next time your home gets invaded by a gang of criminal trespassers, the government should “solve” the problem by simply giving the criminals the deed to your home.
          Same thing!

        • MukeNecca

          If rewarding 5 million law offenders is humane than rewarding, say…50 million must be super humane and rewarding a 100 million would be divine.

    • CowboyUp

      It was unilateral action, there was no compromise to it.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Trudeau was a monster, and more voters for his son is a very bad thing for Canadians who value freedom and a good economy. But the two situations are not comparable. We don’t need or want these illegals in our country – they will give the Democrats a hammerlock on power if they become citizens, and America will turn all the way socialist, making its collapse inevitable. Before that, they will continue to take American jobs away because we have a no-growth economy under Barry. Either they or the Americans they displace will be on welfare, costing taxpayers even more money.

      No one benefits from this except the illegals, who are not our problem, and Democratic politicians. The American people are the victims of this foul scheme – try to understand that.

      • muchiboy

        So no one benefits from this except the illegals,eh? Just what were the first Europeans when they occupied and colonized America? No better than the “illegals”,that’s for sure.

        • MukeNecca

          So no one benefits from this except the illegals,eh?

          Correct!
          Illegals, democrats, leftists of all sorts, race pimps and above all the parasites employed in the governmental institutions created for dealing with problems brought by the illegals. Eh?

          “No better than the “illegals”,that’s for sure.

          Certainly better in creating the richest, freest and most powerful country in human history than the illegals.

        • JayWye

          the British colonists were not “illegals”,because there was NO established nation or government here before they arrived. No borders,no boundaries,just nomadic tribes.
          you’re just digging yourself in deeper,exposing how little you know.

          • muchiboy

            Typical Zionist rationalization.It is part and parcel of Colonialist mentality.You are in good company,JayWye.

          • I_Am_Me

            If you were to hold yourself to the ideals you preach, and you are a “non-native invader” yourself, then we know what the moral imperative is for you. Please provide information for us to find proof of your emigration, suicide, or DNA evidence of 100% Amerindian existence.

            Thanks.

          • muchiboy

            Migrations are part and parcel of the human condition,I_Am_Me,have been since early mankind,beginning with the migrations out of our Homeland,Africa.They are seldom peaceful when they involve occupied places,though often mutually beneficial,to one another and Mankind as a whole.I don’t have a big problem with such migrations so much as I have with the displacement and de facto ethnic cleansing of the occupied People,e.g.,the Palestinians,from their Homeland,by the Diaspora,in modern times,when occupation,and Colonialism,was on its last legs,and on the heels of what is arguably the most horrific violation of Human Rights ever,the Holocaust,and this by the very victims of this moral outrage.Jews should have known better then,and now.

          • tagalog

            The European settlement of America wasn’t a migration?

          • muchiboy

            The conversation here is about the “occupation”,(migration/settlement,if you like),of the Palestinian Homeland.The re-creation of Zionist Israel is within some of our lifetimes,i.e.,1948.The “migration” of Europeans to America occurred hundreds of years ago.Since then,we have progressed on many levels,societal,morally,etc.I would like to think we know better today.Speaking of America,our treatment of the First Nations was shameful,but perhaps within the acceptable moral behavior and mores of the time.We recognize that today,and even go out of our way to redress that conduct.We even do so for the ex-slaves we imported from Africa.Israelis cannot say that about their Palestinian victims,many or most having been ethnically cleansed from their Homeland.Their descendents likewise are denied their Homeland and Birth Right,while any Jew,anywhere,anytime,anyhow is eligible for Israeli citizenship,in what was the Palestinian Homeland some 65 years ago.I happen to find that morally,disgusting.That shameful condition exists today,when we,and Jews,ought to know better.

          • tagalog

            Well, for one thing, “Palestinians” weren’t “ethnically cleansed” by anyone, certainly not the “Zionists,” i.e., the settlers of Israel. The “Palestinians” rejected the option of remaining in Israel as citizens of that state, right where they had been born and raised, and chose to move out of their homes in Israel to other Arab nations. It was the Arab nations that they moved to that put them in concentration camps, where many of them remain to this very day, nursing their mythical grievances against Israel.

          • muchiboy

            My biggest objection here,tagalog,is to your use of “certainly”.In this conflict,as with many others,there are few “certainly’s”.
            Ethnic cleansing is an appropriate description of the events culminating in the Palestinian Nakba.But then,tagalog,you can’t even bring yourself to put down Palestinian except in quotation marks.It is so telling that Zionists can’t stomach the notion of a Palestinian People.It is just one more example of Denial,Denial that reminds me in both motive and agenda,of Hollocaust Denial.

          • tagalog

            So when the Cheyennes took the Black Hills from the Comanches and the Kiowas, they were illegal immigrants to that land, right?

            But before that, the Kiowas and Comanches had taken the Black Hills from the Crows sometime in the 18th Century; were the Kiowas and Comanches illegal immigrants to that country?

            But then the Sioux took the Black Hills from the Cheyennes; were the Sioux illegal immigrants?

            What, then, was the legal status of the Americans who took the Black Hills from the Sioux? Were THEY illegal immigrants?

        • tagalog

          The first Europeans who arrived to colonize North American bear no resemblance whatever to illegal immigrants. There was no immigration law when they arrived.

          I don’t understand how people can continue to harp on the European colonization of North America as if it’s anything like the illegal immigration that’s going today; to do so requires an astounding degree of historical obtuseness.

    • DontMessWithAmerica

      Trudeau was a sick s.o.b. like you and his brainless son could end up worse than Obama. The lot of you need to be deported to a political leper colony.

    • tagalog

      Canada’s policy toward toward the American draft dodgers -and they WERE draft dodgers, they COULD have obtained status as conscientious objectors within the U.S., or had the courage of their convictions and chanced a five-year sentence to federal prison (out on parole in 6-18 months)- was problematic for Canada for years after the Vietnam War was over.

    • Secret Person

      You’ll be changing your tune once the hispanics start taking over Canada.

      • muchiboy

        The world ,including the demographics of Canada,Halifax and the small town where I live and work,has undergone a dramatic and visible change since I was a school kid.If I look at my grade two class picture,we were all little white boys,(I am Catholic,and the boys and girls were in different classrooms).Even the town where I live has undergone changes.Our doctors are mostly foreign trained,and more of our nurses,too.Toronto and Vancouver have visible-minority majorities.We will see even more changes over the years,as our demographics,e.g.aging population,require hundreds og thousands of immigrants yearly,and our traditional sources in Europe have dried up.We will be getting our share of Spanish speaking immigrants,and we already have them here in town.My children will be the ones experencing the changes,but it will be less of a cultural “shock” for them.

  • kasandra

    Rep. Clyburn has to be as dumb as a sack of hair. Just whose jobs does he think these people are going to take? Rocket scientists? Black people are going to be the chief victims of this as these illegal aliens will take jobs that may otherwise have gone to black people and will overload social services and welfare to the detriment of many black people. And, by the way, what was the “deal” Obama referred to? A deal would have involved him negotiating with Congress in which he would have to, for instance, agree to a secure fence on our southern border in return for this amnesty? But instead, he makes a “deal” with himself. Where’s the deal?

  • Skip V. Patel

    Republican response to Obama’s Amnesty declaration: On CNN Rep. Sean
    Duffy (R-Wisconsin) is complaining that the President’s plan leaves
    “Over fifteen million unprotected”. That’s 20 million folks….and
    remember, former GOPAC Chair Michael Steele admitted to “over 30
    million” illegals on the Peter Boyles show (KNUS Denver). Now, add
    “family re-unification” to the equation and were are at 50 million + new neighbors.

  • Skip V. Patel

    Obama and the Dems want Amnesty by Imperial edict. The Republicans insist on amnesty by way of Congressional revision of our present immigration and criminal code. Either way, both parties don’t give a hoot about U.S. law or the wishes of the American people.

    • truebearing

      What are you going to do about it?

      • Skip V. Patel

        Truebearing: I have been writing about the duplicitous traitors in D.C. for years in theflyingcameldotorg, thelastcrusade10 and many other sites. I’ll leave worshipping political parties to the Marxiists and die-hard Bolsheviks. The U.S. has one “party”, a double-headed buzzard called Republicrat.

        • truebearing

          My point is simple. Our politicians are in power because we the people elected them. As an electorate, we are outsourcing our right to self-governance, especially when we think voting is all that is necessary to maintain a democratic republic.

          In 2010 the Tea Party gained enough momentum, thanks in large part to Sarah Palin. They are the reason we took the House, not the Republican Party. Americans could have gotten behind them, forced the Republican Party to the Right, and elected anyone but Obama, but the electorate failed because it is too susceptible to media spin and too lazy to do research and learn the truth.

          Yes, Obama and the Left are evil. I’ve said it 10,000 times, but the predicament we are in is ultimately the fault of the American people, evil men rule when good men don’t, and it really pi**es me off.

          I’m not blaming you personally. I’m pointing out that we need to stop wasting time pointing fingers and start driving results. The Republican Party will only become as conservative and courageous as the people who elect them. We need to mobilize constant and furious pressure on the Republican leadership, and all representatives, to stand on principle, or find a different job.

      • gerry

        This is the real question.

  • steve b

    WHERE IS LEE HARVEY OSWALD NOW?

  • Jon Sobieski

    The GOP leadership is really easy to understand. They want amnesty and are glad Obama did it. Now to pretend they don’t, that is where the acting comes into play.

    • truebearing

      The Republicans aren’t the problem. Passive Americans who want someone else to govern is the real problem. Stop whining about the Republicans and do something to make them fear you as a citizen and a voter. This was a Democratic Republic. The people governed here once. If you want the people to govern again it will take action, not bitterness or blaming. Americans can blame themselves.

      • Ghost Writer

        The Republicans are part of the problem. Just as the Democrats are part of the problem. I find the comment that Americans should do something as ridiculous. Perhaps you mean they should start a real revolution, guns and all.

        • I_Am_Me

          It could start out more subtle than that. Say, turning off the TV, putting the stupidphone down, and picking up a book.

          Poorly educated mushminds have no idea what’s going on. It’s all “Faux News” gibberish to them at this point.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            You prefer BSNBC and Rev. Al, Sgt. Ed Shultz, Tingle up my leg Matthews, Rachel Madcow?

          • I_Am_Me

            You don’t know me. I have an open profile. You just committed friendly fire.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Faux News?

            Not BSNBC?

          • I_Am_Me

            Sarcasm and satire. Look it up.

      • gerry

        Thbe stupid Am ericans are the problem.

  • Jon Sobieski

    Proof is easy. Got a printer. I can churn out utility bills and cashed checks for any amount and any date in no time. Now who is going to check for forgeries on the many ‘proof’ of residency docs for millions of apps and still make Obama’s expedited approval process.

  • cree

    How are authorities going to disprove an in the shadows, no green card illegal alien being here under the 5 year limit when they claim 5 years or more? Will the authorities enforce the back taxes and fees? How many are there that have come across under 5 years (who’ll admit such) and what will happen to them? How many will follow the children who have come across recently; will they get amnesty? What of the ones still coming across an insecure border?

    Dear leader has fixed our immigration system, finally, with a pen no less.

  • Alex

    If all that he has done is to “not deport” illegals, then many will stay under the radar simply to avoid paying tax.

    • Gee

      No – they will not earn enough to pay taxes so instead they will get thousands of dollars in Earned Income Credit.

      So not only will they not pay any taxes, they will be paid by the US taxpayers for their crimes.

      • I_Am_Me

        This is probably exactly what will happen. And Obama will start cherry-picking laws to allow it.

    • JayWye

      if they don’t pay taxes,it’s that much more to send home to their relatives. Note that illegals can file to have their withholding returned to them.

  • Canadianpatriot

    I am no expert in these matters, but I would say that Americans woke up this morning living under a dictatorship. You have a lying little POS at the helm, Republicans without gonads, and an ignorant electorate that put him in power. What more could you possibly get to convince you that you are in grave trouble. Has the welfare state so corrupted America that only a handful give a damn? Lest you think that I am feeling smug up here in the north, if we lose our conservative government in the next election, we will be heading down the same path to perdition. I despair, but I will keep fighting for free enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, and free speech. May God be with you.

    • tagalog

      That about says it. Fortunately, we can get rid of Obama in two years, although two years seems so long in his case.

      • gerry

        We shall see.

    • gerry

      They are now living under a Caliph,but are too stupid to realise it.

    • Doc2Go

      Good on you, Canuck! May G-d bless and keep you and yours, as well. The two countries are inextricably linked in history and fate. Thanks for your comment, here.

      -Doc

  • joe kulak

    Win or lose… Obama wins. He doesn’t care about any particular piece of legislation. He wants to create uncertainty, strife, disorder, chaos. He has already done so and will continue — until he is stopped by some external force (as in Newton’s first law of motion).
    By pitting one group against another he opens the door to “fundamental transformation”; i.e., ultimately a totalitarian socialist utopia. He will settle for however much he can get; a little bit at a time if resisted, a quantum leap “forward” if unrestrained. The nickname “Benito Obamalini” seems more appropriate every day.

    • Blastergamer

      You forgot that Obama ended the recession.

      • JayWye

        go back to sleep.

  • truebearing

    What Obama is doing is tantamount to an invasion of America…led by the President of the United States. It makes the Trojan Horse look tame in comparison, mostly because the Trojan Horse was deception from without, not treason from within.

    If the constitution can be grounf into the dirt on Amnesty, what is to stop Obama from staying in power after his term is up? If Americans don’t respond with a ground-shaking uproar, what is to dissuade Obama frm declaring himself King?

    Forget the carping over the Republican response. We already know it will be fractured, weak, and ineffective. The Republican Party is one where the Cruzes are a small minority and the flaccid Boehners are the majority. No, don’t look for the Republicans to make things right. Do it yourselves, or stop complaining. This battle is between the citizens of America and Obama — and his minions on the Left. The Republicans are simply weather vanes that tend to point right…if the wind is strong enough. We the People are the ones who will save the country, not We the Republicans. If that truth is ignored, we will be the subjects a racist a-hole who will punish all of us for opposing him, being white, Jewish, Christian, conservative, capitalist, or simply freedom loving.

    Analysis of this situation is hardly worth the time it takes to write it. Every analysis is fundamentally the same. We don’t need more paralysis of analysis. We need calls to action. We need action. We don’t need dispassionate intellectualizing, with the attendant lack of action that pondering assumes. We need action. We need people in the streets. We need leaders willing to take a risk. We need citizens willing to take a risk. We need people who recognize that not taking a risk leads to a guaranteed loss of freedom, property, and everything we hold dear. We need people who are willing to fight…but not just on the internet. We need people who understand that hoarding their money now is a waste of resources. Use it, or lose it. Obama will simply take your money whenever he wants to anyway. Breaking News! Obama doesn’t follow laws.

    Welcome to Obama’s Grave New World

    • I_Am_Me

      Rep. Michelle Bachman is calling for Dec. 3rd, noon, gathering in the capital. Waiting to get more info.

  • GSR

    Grant amnesty to 5 million? So can we then assume, the other 20-25 million illegal aliens are going to be deported? ;-)

    • knowshistory

      that’s funny. the criminals of both parties have no intention whatsoever to start enforcing our laws.

      • GSR

        Thanks but I wasn’t trying to be funny. There are a huge number of illegal aliens, outside the law, living and working in our country. Is anything really going to be done about it? I think not. There’s not political will. None. Everyone is afraid to address the issue.

        • Blastergamer

          True. Many people today only have big mouthes, but small brain to do something.

  • Disruptive Element

    What is the point of all the articles-all this chit chat-Americans should be marching on Washington-

    • gerry

      This is what they do in other countries.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Can prisoners be released because their families have not committed a crime? Can I do something illegal because my parents are good, taxpaying people, and then be rewarded for my misdeed by being told I don’t have to pay a traffic ticket or go to court to answer for the money I borrowed from somebody and didn’t pay back. Now, some immigrants who are not legit are being allowed to be legit on the basis that their relatives are legit. I don’t get the logic. We know his unilateral action is unconstitutional, and that’s pretty serious, but is it even moral? I have had illegal students in my high school classes, and do not refuse to read their exams and papers. I teach them as well as any other student. But am under no illusions about their status. I feel a head/heart conflict, yes, but as a good utilitarian, I see the greatest number suffering from this incursion of newly minted “legals.” We shall not gain in terms of taxes, nor will be gain in terms of a reformed, responsible citizenry.

    • I_Am_Me

      It is completely immoral in many aspects. Krauthammer said it best with his line about legal immigrants and those waiting to be allowed in are chumps according to Obama.

  • Gee

    The ‘quote’ from Book of Exodus is a mistranslation. That is not what is actually says.

    “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too” the word is not stranger. It is actually a person originally born elsewhere that now lives with you. In other words a Resident Alien. Not a stranger at all.

  • Gloria Stewart

    While I agree with Mr. Vadum’s points, there is an aspect of the immigration problem that is virtually never discussed. The worst consequence of mass Hispanic immigration, absent the mandatory assimilation that until recent decades was a quid pro quo, is cultural not economic.
    Take a realistic look at this part of the world. Where do you see stable continuing democracies and prosperity? In the United States and Canada only. There is not a nation south of the border that can claim this.
    Hispanic culture may turn out charming people, good food and happy music, but it is obviously not conducive to stable liberal democracies.

    • I_Am_Me

      They are Catholic fatalists. They are much less interested in institutional quality. It’s all in God’s hands! Focus on the family and let the “powers” that be be handled by God. It’s ripe for abuse. And their societies prove this out repeatedly.

  • knowshistory

    an obnoxious and arrogant criminal has committed a great crime. will the victims let him get away with it, or will they rise up in righteous anger, and frog march the criminal into court, find him guilty, and see him punished? lol. we are finished as a nation of laws. we are just waiting for a dictator. we may have found him.

  • iluvisrael

    What’s ironic and sad is that this will hurt working class people and blacks a lot – the ‘folks’ as obola likes to call them – the groups that are always reminded by dem politicians like that shrill dingbat debbie wassername shultz that “We have your backs”, but the ‘folks’ continue to be used by the left and unable to get off the dem plantation.

  • tommo2

    Americans may well begin to understand South Africa’s position when the world community, including the USA, insisted they give one man one vote ensuring that the white government would be swept from power by the majority black vote. But the newly formed electorate included many immigrants who had no right to be in the country and were imported to ensure the stable white government would face political suicide. Americans may well study what has happened to South Africa since this imposition. There is more apartheid there today than under the previous government and the country now receives aid from the West. The black government is racist, despotic and corrupt but the world community remains silent having achieved its real ambition of ethnic cleansing white people from Africa.

    • I_Am_Me

      Conservatives are not concerned by and large with the racial composition. It’s the shifting values from liberty to compassionate tyranny. Unsophisticated cultures simply do not properly understand the cost/benefit analysis of liberty.

    • Doc2Go

      And Rhodesia, earlier.

      -Doc

  • MrUniteUs1

    The best way to stop illegal immigration, is to fine and confine illegal employers.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Enforce the borders and block illegal invaders and illegal drugs from entering the country.
      .
      The drug problem would end if people would stop using illegal drugs (marijuana, crack, heroin).

      • JayWye

        If -ILLEGALS- can’t get work or any residence here,then they won’t try to come here. We cannot make an impenetrable border.
        But we -can- penalize any US citizen who knowingly employs or rents to an illegal. We -can- make it easy and simple for any employer/renter to check on an applicant’s citizen status.

        It’s no different than your statement of “The drug problem would end if people would stop using illegal drugs”.
        If US people stop employing or renting to (“using”) illegals,then they won’t come here illegally. It’s “aiding and abetting”, or “harboring a fugitive”. Both are already criminal acts.

        • MrUniteUs1

          Well stated JayWye

        • Doc2Go

          Actually, America could build an impenetrable border. America has the means, the technology, and the public mandate. The only thing lacking is the political will to do so in the federal government.

          -Doc

        • objectivefactsmatter

          If that is >the reality< then we must cease welfare programs. End of story. Then everyone will be happy. Almost everyone.

  • Disruptive Element

    He could hear the laughter behind the closed door. It was a real celebration as the planners of both political persuasions were giving congratulations to the President who was the only one who could pull this coup on the American citizens. It is complete, it was like a “perfect storm” with the media, the tireless minions working and drafting the destruction of the Constitution, the useful idiots who performed with almost perfection. There had been a few missteps such as with Gruber but as they thought most Americans were “stupid’ as in uninformed and too lazy to be informed. “Oh, that political stuff is so boring” they could almost read the publics mind, besides they had put them in the position where they were so exhausted trying to make a living to support their families they were so depleted of energy and time to pay real attention. The joke too is on the illegals which are about to become part of the system, as once they have your real number, you are then under total control like most citizens now that they pulled off the great healthcare scam.
    He silently walked away, he knew all the ones who knew this was true would write their articles, appear everywhere denouncing still making money off the turmoil and they too would do nothing…………………………………..

  • tagalog

    “The Bible says you shall not oppress a stranger.” How is it oppression to expect the stranger to obey our laws and to enforce the law against him if he breaks them? Including our immigration laws? The oppression comes when we let the lawbreaking stranger continue living among us without enforcing the law, and then giving him reason to believe he can stay.

    As a practical matter how are we going to establish any working differentiation between the illegal immigrants who are not breaking other laws in America from the illegal immigrants who sneaked in and are now otherwise law-abiding (even if they DON’T pay taxes)? Given the ability of the last two or three federal administrations, we aren’t going to establish any such thing.

    What credible argument will we have to keep illegal immigrants with these three-year work permits from successfully claiming government benefits if they get sick or become unemployed? How will any current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment allow us to create that suspect classification? And what then, about the American sense of fair play and compassion? Well, it probably won’t be Obama’s problem when it crops up.

  • Anonymous

    Latinos are called “illegal” for not being white. This not about the rule of law, it is about a desperate, in a panic, white racist population maintaining white supremacy.

    • Guest

      Racist fool.

      • I_Am_Me

        He’s less of a racist and more of a common moron.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Anonymous Racist, Invaders from South of the Border are illegal, regardless of color.

  • Anonymous

    The age of the white man and woman is over. And after 500 years of racist white rule, it is about time.

    • Guest

      Racist.

    • tagalog

      I wouldn’t ring the death knell on white people quite yet.

  • tagalog

    Obama let us know that the “slap-down” that voters gave him and his policies and the Democrat Party on Election Day means nothing to him -so far- when he said “To the 2/3 of Americans who did not vote, I heard you too.”

  • http://www.hubpages.com/profiles/maven101 LarryConners

    Boehner is spineless and McConnell articulately challenged…The president dictates would could be a constitutional crisis for future executive powers, and congress takes a hike, saying, See you next year, my fellow Americans, and then we will really, really raise our eyebrows, display outrage, and show him a thing or two…By then this imperial amnesty will have buried it’s hooks deep into the government bureaucracy and tied to so many other mandates it will be impossible to reverse…
    Obama slapped congress (and the legal citizens of the USA} in the face and congress does nothing except bluster and express outrage and then leave the stage…

    • Doc2Go

      That may be because you have permitted franchise media to choose which candidates are “electable” or “unelectable”. America has a huge number of articulate, passionately patriotic, Conservative writers, thinkers, and voters. In spite of that, Romney was really the best man the GOP could come up with, for the most powerful public office in the Free World?

      America needs a statesman (or woman) comparable to the following people, if not directly cloned from them, lol:

      John Adams
      Winston Churchill
      Thomas Jefferson
      Abraham Lincoln
      John Locke
      James Madison
      Benjamin Netanyahu
      John Pershing
      Ronald Reagan
      Vlad Tepes
      Margaret Thatcher
      George Washington

      I believe that from over 300,000,000 persons, there must be at least one.

      -Doc

      • http://www.hubpages.com/profiles/maven101 LarryConners

        I would add Teddy Roosevelt to that list…speaking of which, doesn’t Bolton remind you of a mini Teddy..?
        None of the current usual suspects offering themselves up as presidential material appeals to my conservative convictions…besides, the RNC would never allow a true conservative to run for that office…

        • Doc2Go

          I almost put TR on the list, and yes, Bolton does a bit. I sent a fiery letter to Reince Priebus, telling him that the RNC would not see another penny from me, as long as the RINO’s were spending more contributions on defeating TEA party candidates than on defeating Liberal Democrat Socialists. The fate of the Republic hangs in the balance, and the establishment RINO’s think it is O.K. to devour the base? RNC/GOP should have welcomed the true patriots and Conservatives in the TEA party movement, rather than trying to shut them out.

          -Doc

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    IT’S TEENAGE EXECUTIVE AMNESTY HOUR

    Doesn’t it seem fitting that our Teenager-In-Chief (the most utopian, unrealistic, adolescent US president in history) in juvenile defiance of the US Constitution and Congress should choose the setting of a Las Vegas high school with cheering, mindless, immature kids for issuing his petulant fantasy decree amateurishly trying to legalize illegal, lawbreaking aliens? The high school setting was emblematic of the fate of Obama’s decree in the courts as most any US judge will view it contemptuously as a simple, uncomplicated, unequivocal Constitution 101 violation, and childish denial of legal reality. It’s as if the epically failed Obama after his crushing election defeat wanted to give himself a temporary morale boost and shot of self-esteem (or one last puerile jab at the Tea Party/GOP) before the darkness of irrelevancy and despair closes in on his crazy, chaos-causing. radical presidency.

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for more on this subject.

  • Ghost Writer

    Yes. Most of realize how horrific Obama is acting. One would expect that the Republican party would take action to thwart his plan for amnesty of illegals. But I see no hope for that with the two so-called leaders: Boehner and McConnell.
    Sherrif Joe A of Maricopa County Arizona has filed suit against the federal government over the amnesty plan. There is a man with courage and conviction.

    • Doc2Go

      Hear, hear! Why can’t America draft him, to run ICE?

      -Doc

  • Blastergamer

    Explain why it will create less jobs and lower wages please.

    • JayWye

      government payments and benefits to illegals means more taxes. (in one way or another)
      more taxes means less money to hire new workers,enlarge your business,etc.
      a glut of unemployed workers drives down wages.(supply and demand) illegals are willing to work for lower wages,because it’s stil much higher than what they were earning in their home country.

      TANSTAAFL.

  • Blastergamer

    I see this is a biased article. Don’t take this for granted.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Your biases are showing.

  • gerry

    Elections in the US don’t matter.

  • gerry

    Yes,the whole world knows that it was the result of the video. Confirmation of what Gruber just said,America has no credibility anymore and cannot be trusted.Once stupid always stupid.

  • gerry

    This is the joke.

  • muchiboy
  • Daniel

    There is only one possible form of resistance currently possible to stop the Third World invasion.
    Take one small state- say North Dakota……and entirely eliminate welfare(not SS or military pensions) in all its forms.
    What would that do?
    Welfare baby mamas, druggies, disability scam artists and the large criminal underclass would have to relocate to another state.
    Think about it.
    The only people who could stay would have to support themselves. Only productive people and their families can stay.
    This causes a massive exodus of social parasites to other states………..and they won’t like it.
    As the small state’s law enforcement and social services budget shrinks due to the exit of the parasitic element, the state saves money and can attract more businesses.
    More states will then take this approach to stem the tide of the parasites. This will eventually drive the parasites into BLUE bastions like California.
    Now think about that electoral map in blue and red that we’ve all seen.
    The vast majority of counties in the US are red. Probably 90% of the US landmass votes red.
    The final step?
    Secession.
    A new country contiguous with western Canada(which may want to try some of this) going all the way up to Alaska. A productive, defensible new North American state.
    Third World parasites need not apply.
    Oh yeah…….and for those doubters that will say……”What about criminal parasites that will just turn to crime and not leave?”
    They’ll leave.
    The militia movement will see to that.

  • Hard Little Machine

    11 million Mexicans in America will be told to rise up to prevent lord Obama from stepping down in January 2017.

    • MrUniteUs1

      How did FDR get more than two terms in office?

      • Hard Little Machine

        It was not a constitutional amendment until after him.

        • MrUniteUs1

          thx

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It was just tradition prior to that.

  • I_Am_Me

    So you don’t know what friendly fire is. Got it.

    Sarcasm and satire. Look it up.

    • hiernonymous

      One problem with partisan politics is the unsatisfactory quality of one’s fellow partisans.

  • JayWye

    realistically speaking,there’s only ONE way he’s going to be stopped.
    It’s not impeachment,that’s not realistic.
    it’s not “power of the purse”,that’s not realistic either.
    you and many others may not like it,but those are the facts.

    • rebaaron

      You may be right. We are going to find out now just how powerful a President is when he has no regard for the law. Next time we’ll be careful about electing people who spent their formative years outside of America.

  • truebearing

    So, in other words, you leftist trolls are waiting for the leftist White House to substantiate their own lies. Wake u7p, moron. No one believes them any more than they believe you.

    • hiernonymous

      The House Intelligence Committee is not the White House, and, in fact, is dominated by Republicans.

      • hiernonymous

        Holy deleted posts, Batman! It looks like he can feel embarrassment!

        • IdahoFireFlyer

          Absolutely fricking amazing.
          You are responding to yourself on the interwebs.
          Thorazine no longer working my simple minded friend?
          Seek help.

          • hiernonymous

            Holy Rent Free Space, Batman! We’ve made a new friend!

            Welcome to the thread. I don’t think Thorazine would do much. The voices aren’t so much in my head as in front of my eyeballs, and they say such silly but kind things as calling me “young” that I don’t really want them to stop.

          • Americana

            Even if you want them to roll back a decade or two, don’t let them roll back too far. Remember, w/age comes wisdom and witticisms….

  • truebearing

    Only an idiot and a liar of your proportions continues to maintain that there were no “stand down” orders, or that the attack was caused by a video. We have direct testimony from the men who ignored the order to stand down, and they are far more believable that the manipulated, redacted crap generated by the Whitehouse, CIA, and in particular, Hillary’s State Deparment.

    It does’t look like there will be any backtracking, Moronica…

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/24/benghazi-theorists-find-gaping-holes-in-new-house-report

    • hiernonymous

      “Only an idiot and a liar of your proportions continues to maintain that there were no “stand down” orders…”

      And yet the Republican-dominated HIC found precisely that. Here is the full report – you might want to read it before further making yourself look silly.

      From the Executive Summary: “Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.”

  • truebearing

    You aren’t going to succeed in protecting Hillary, Moronica. These findings are already being slammed by othe Republicans and we will see further investigation. But why would you worry about that? The whole thing was caused by a video. And the CIA employees who testified they were told to stand down are lying…uh-huh. Apparently you haven’t gotten the message from the recent elections…people don’t believe you lying leftist scum like they used to.

    The facts remain:

    The video was a blatant lie. That has been proven.

    Hillary failed as SOS to secure the consulate.

    Hillary ignored repeated requests for more security.

    The men who fought to save the Americans at the consulate all agree there were stand down orders given twice.

    And then there is the weapons-for-Al Qaeda scheme that both Hillary and Obama were secretly conducting through Stevens…which is why Stevens was hung out to dry and is dead. Far be it from a soulless, lying leftist to rescue a witness to their own evil, especially when that witness could damage their chances to stay in power.

    • hiernonymous

      Wrong. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I direct your attention to this comment by jukeboxgrad that nicely sums up the information and misinformation pertaining to the video.

      You apparently persist in being unable to understand that the idea of the video as motivation is a completely separate question from whether the Benghazi attacks were by a spontaneous mob vs a planned terror attack. Terrorists have motives, too.

      “The men who fought to save the Americans at the consulate all agree there were stand down orders given twice.”

      Well, no, they don’t, not in the politically relevant sense. “Stand down” orders, in the context of criticism of the administration, refer not to local tactical decisions concerning immediate employment of assets, but to national-level decisions to order available forces not to respond. If a platoon leader, for example, orders one of his squads to hold fast rather than immediately rush into a firefight, that is not a ‘stand down’ order, it’s a tactical decision. No “stand down” order was given that night, and the HIC found as much. You are mired in your own lack of understanding of the topic.

      • Americana

        What you wrote above is what I was trying to get at, hieronymous, and my language was lacking tactical accuracy because the “Stand Down” term has been used in all these discussions. Apologies for any confusion I may have added or be adding to the discussion when I mess up w/the terms. Please notify me ASAP when I muck up Army terminology…

        • Doc2Go

          I may be able to help with that on occasion, as well.

          -Doc

          • Americana

            Yes, you may be. You’re certainly welcome to try. However, you didn’t correct anyone on any of these innumerable Benghazi threads about the spurious use of the phrase “STAND DOWN” vs the use of the phrase “HOLD FAST” so I’m curious why you hadn’t done so.

            If, as hieronymous has indicated, there’s an extremely important distinction between the two terms, then there’s grounds for fallacious, propagandistic writing if the terms remain misunderstood and misinterpreted by all FPM writers, no? The House Intelligence Committee report unequivocally states there were never “STAND DOWN” orders given and the only folks maintaining they received “STAND DOWN” orders were the security personnel in the CIA Annex. However, the security contractors in the CIA Annex could well have been told to “HOLD FAST” for perfectly reasonable security and tactical reasons such as not disclosing the location of the CIA Annex location and causing the second firefight.

            No, I’m still content that what played out in Benghazi is something that was and is likely to happen at any of our outposts where there are too few security personnel. Rambo can’t save the day in every instance and we should never have believed in the Rambo scenario.

          • Doc2Go

            Rambo? Seriously? We aren’t discussing a film fantasy. We are discussing protecting American interests, lives and property. To say that there wasn’t time to rescue or reinforce either position is to assume that the threat was undisclosed to the administration until the initial attack was launched. That is patently ridiculous. The words given in early reports, from USG employees in the region, were that they were ordered to stand down.

            They never said they were instructed to hold fast or stand fast. In the RRF’s case, they are formed, trained, and deployed for just such an incident. It would have come as no surprise to them, to have to rapidly close with and initiate contact with terrorist forces in Benghazi. That is what they trained to do. There also is time (several weeks) leading up to the initial attacks, when security resources are shuffled, reduced, and shuffled again. My only question is “Why?”

            -Doc

          • Americana

            You’d better read hieronymous’ post in detail and reply to him and I will reply after his reply. He’s hit all the points I consider to be relevant on Benghazi. Yes, whether you consider the Rambo comment to be derogatory or not, it’s applicable. We are relying on our Rapid Response Forces as if we’re going to be able to master all critical strategic incidents simply by dispatching aerial assault forces.

            At heart, it’s GOT NOTHING TO DO w/the security personnel at the CIA Annex being ready and willing “to close with and initiate contact w/terrorist forces in Benghazi”. The question is whether it was SENSIBLE for those CIA Annex forces to have considered themselves to be the forces to ATTEMPT to relieve the consular compound when they were supposed to be DEFENDING THE CIA ANNEX. Especially if the consular compound had already been overrun by the time the CIA Annex security personnel would have been able to fight their way through to the consular compound itself. As for all the conspiracy theories and rumors about the “shuffled, reduced and shuffled again” among the consular compound’s security forces, it’s VERY CLEAR THAT AMB. STEVENS didn’t want UNIFORMED SECURITY as his security team. When it was time for security personnel to return to the U.S. on their REGULAR SCHEDULED ROTATION, Amb. Stevens made it clear he wanted non-uniform, non-milirary personnel and those mercenaries come out of a different budget than do the uniformed personnel. There was no mystery rotation of American uniformed personnel out of Libya. That rotation was scheduled long before and, in the meantime, Amb. Stevens tried to have his request for NON-MILITARY, NON-UNIFORMED American security contractors be dispatched for his protection.

            http://www.state.gov/m/ds/about/overview/c9004.htm

          • Doc2Go

            “At heart, it’s GOT NOTHING TO DO w/the security personnel at the CIA Annex being ready and willing “to close with and initiate contact w/terrorist forces in Benghazi”.”

            True. That is why you misquote me. That was my description of the RRF, not the Annex SecContractors.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Yes, I’m addressing that comment to address the overall comment of there being relief forces within reach of Benghazi. Most people writing about the CIA security contractors in the CIA Annext among FPM readers have claimed that the relief force that came from the CIA Annex was sufficient to relieve the consular compound at the height of firefight at the consular compound. There WERE NO American Rapid Relief Forces that were capable of being deployed to Benghazi in time. That has been clear for a long time. No one who claims that there were RRF teams who were ready to be instantly deployed and who also claim that those RRF forces would have been able to save Amb. Stevens or prevent the attack on the CIA Annex are not being honest.

          • Americana

            Ah, interesting that for about the fourth time, a full post in reply has vanished…

          • hiernonymous

            To clarify, while there is a distinction between “stand down” and an order to hold or delay (stand down implies that you no longer need be ready for combat – the alert is over, the crisis is past), the really important distinction I was drawing was that of the echelon of command and nature of the orders being given. The political criticism aimed at the administration vis-a-vis the supposed ‘stand down’ order involves national-level authorities directing operational entities capable of responding to the crisis not to do so. The point I was trying to emphasize is that the tactical decisions being made by entities already in-country are utterly irrelevant to that discussion. Had anyone in Libya ordered all assets in Libya to “stand down,” that would not address the political criticism. In fact, nobody in Libya stood down; there was a dispute at the CIA annex about when and whether to move assets to the assistance of the State Dept compound, and there were decisions in Tripoli concerning how many of the available troops should deploy to Benghazi and how many should be retained in Tripoli for defense of the Embassy.

            Your last point is the critical one – State has always operated on a shoestring. Primary responsibility for the security of any embassy rests with the host country; we don’t station large numbers of troops at embassies, nor is the primary mission of our deployed military forces to serve as a rapid-response force for embassy security. The military can and does play that role, but it is not its primary function, and it is neither resourced nor tasked to try to make sure that there is a full brigade on standby for each of the hundreds of diplomatic missions we maintain throughout the world.

            I don’t think that it’s reasonable to expect that we can eliminate risk for all of the personnel we have throughout the world engaged in, well, risky behavior. From what I’ve seen so far, the ambassador declined increased military security because he valued keeping a low profile over having additional guns available. I believe he did want additional security, but wanted a particular flavor of security that was less obvious than that provided by our uniformed services. A legitimate debate might be about whether such security elements were available for service in Libya but not sent – in which case, the questions would be, what were they doing instead, and was that truly a higher priority? If not, should we have gone ahead with whatever mission the ambassador was engaged in? In a broader sense, should we have a discussion about shifting some of the resourcing from DoD to DoS? I’ve long been uncomfortable with the degree to which State hired mercenaries to provide its security (and by ‘mercenaries,’ I mean both local forces and our burgeoning domestic military-for-hire firms such as Blackwater and its subsequent incarnations). If we are going to continue with our nation-building adventures, one trusts that we have at least learned that the civilian follow-on piece is just as important as the initial military operations; perhaps DSS needs to be significantly beefed up.

          • Doc2Go

            Ezzactally.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Thanks for writing out your points in detail, hieronymous. You’ve hit all the points about Benghazi and the position of the Dept. of State and the Dept. of Defense that concern me.

          • Doc2Go

            Actually, I wasn’t on Disqus, at the time, or I likely would have questioned that.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Well, you’re in position to question the stupidity of some of these Benghazi points now. Have at it.

          • Doc2Go

            Your description of the points as stupidity reveals your bias. This isn’t much different than the fact that you continue to denigrate me as a “conspiracy theorist”. You are more interested in your preconceived narrative thriving, than in a pursuit of The Truth. That saddens me, to a degree, because I had actually dared to hope that you might be different. I reject Socialism, in all of its guises, as well as its proponents, apologists, and mindless sycophants. If you were the least bit pragmatic, you would, too.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I’m interested in facts. Either you are or you aren’t. You’ve been given great clarity about Benghazi in hieronymous’ post. I’d like to see any subsequent posts from you about Benghazi reflect that information and those insights.

          • Americana

            You’ve been given great clarity about the truths of why what happened in Benghazi happened in hieronymous’ post. From here on out, I don’t expect to encounter the same mistaken beliefs about how the timeline in Benghazi plays out.

          • Doc2Go

            I already stated that I cannot accept the report as a comprehensive answer to the subject, and why. There is no Be All, End All report on the subject, as you assert. It is far more likely that further data will come out in dribs and drabs, over the coming years. Getting at the truth of What Actually Happened may not even be possible while this administration is in the WH.

            What you expect to encounter from me is none of my concern.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Ah, this is a very cagey reply. You don’t state any of your objections to the actual report or to the compelling post by hieronymous that explains just how vulnerable these American diplomatic outposts are. You just continue to assert that “further data will come out in dribs and drabs over the coming years”. And, from that, we’re left to assume that the conspiracy will only be exposed years from now. How convenient for you and for your conspiracy theories.

          • Doc2Go

            No, Sir! Not convenient! Damned Inconvenient, if I do say so, myself. The lack of instant verification is the whole reason that people didn’t take McCarthy as seriously as they should have. I would love to have instant, verifiable, and comprehensive answers to all of our questions, regardless of whether they fit with my assertions or not. That isn’t possible, with human beings. I was born at night, but it certainly wasn’t last night. Can you manage to reduce how droll and condescending you are, even by one iota?

            -Doc

          • Americana

            It’s of absolutely no importance how droll (what a WEIRD CHOICE of adjective!) I am in the context of this conversation when you could devastate my point of view by stating facts about Benghazi. Do you know how foolish you appear trying to deflect the factual trajectory of the Benghazi conversation by calling me names and making claims about me instead of stating the known facts?

          • Doc2Go

            I will take that as a “No”, you cannot. My response was to what you had to say about me and my views, not the facts or lack thereof about Benghazi.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, from that, we’re left to assume that the conspiracy will only be exposed years from now. How convenient for you and for your conspiracy theories.”

            We don’t know what if anything was hidden. It might be simply a result of shrinking our capabilities even further than anyone suspects at this time. We don’t know.

            We don’t trust the liar. There is no reason to trust people who lie and demonstrate nothing but incompetence. And politicians lie for various reasons. It’s very stupid to for whatever reason go around pretending that this report contains something like what we’d hope to get at a criminal trial where none of the suspects can hide behind special privileges that the government does legitimately need to conduct effective foreign policy.

            You come across like an ignoramus when you push and expect anyone to accept an interim report like this as the final word.

            There might be further whistleblower leaks or we as a republic might have to wait until all of the relevant documents are unclassified.

            Of course you can continue to try to argue with people just for the heck of it.

          • Americana

            You come across like an ignoramus when you don’t even attempt to specify what your gripes are w/the factual presentation and you concentrate instead on simply claiming the existence of a conspiracy. Immediately jumping to crafting the conspiracy theory when the commonsense read of the situation gives the same catastrophic results doesn’t bode well for the conspiracy theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m very worried when moronic communists question my acumen in any realm.

          • Doc2Go

            So. Bloody. Shrill. She. Is. Gives me a bleeding headache. Especially all of the capitolised yelling, to get your attention. It is like being shouted down, and interrupted, and talked over, with increasing volume. It is like dealing with me ex-wife. Finishing off my last pint of Guinness, now. G’night, Mates.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            She’s done this before arguing over “Palestinians” as “victims” of Israel. She had more material to work with then. Still, I identified her fallacies as primarily rooted in neo-Marxism. I only however realized on this thread what a full blown communist dupe she truly is.

          • Doc2Go

            I would love to disassemble her assertions, re: Israel.
            “There is no such thing as a Palestinian” would be my opener. Why (unless it really is a mental illness) do they so predictably gravitate to supporting the side of wrong, illegality, or evil, regardless of the issue?

            All I have to do, to net a shrill haranguing from her, is simply disagree with any of the asinine things that fall out of her mouth. You make or support a fact, and she never acknowledges it…ever. I guess these are the kinds of people so lately ascendant, in American politics. Even their talking points/mantras are shrill lies, shouting down any opposition. I get exhausted, sometimes.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m not sure if she’s chimed in lately on Israel. I don’t join in unless someone really pulls some idiotic crap.

            Basically what she does is pull the “Yeah I know jihad is bad…but oppression and deprivation and stuff. And even some Israelis agree with me!” As if there are no freaking communist morons in Israel. If only.

            Under Critical Theory there is always a way to blame deprivation of power or material “need.” So therefore in the end we’re an oppressive empire because we’re rich and powerful whether we have earned it and whether it’s a good thing for people to enjoy what they earn is never discussed because the underlying and often unspoken ethic is that private property is left. Therefore if I envy you, you’re a thief. It’s just “common sense” to those raised on this crap.

            If you’re exposed to this kind of mendacious and myopic analysis for long enough, you’re going to see Israel as an oppressor by virtue of the fact that they have a productive economy and the lazy MFers are therefore a de facto oppressed class. Why else would they fight against a powerful sovereign and sacrifice their blood and meager wealth?

            I remember years ago when I saw yet another communist jihadi agitprop film. It was highly stylized similar to a “documentary” you’d see on MTV or some similar channel. The line that they repeated several times without supporting – just kept droning with rhythmic background music was something like if you see violence in a society something is wrong. Er, OK. And little by little they unfold this theory of deprivation and so forth. And it was purely from the perspective of social criticism absent of underlying search for actual causes. Pure theory. This resonated with me in the sense that it was very familiar but at the same time I saw how mendaciously they were in their applications.

            This was a key moment where I started to look deliberately for this communist / jihadi political alignment. I started to understand why the radical college teachers were able to target Israel so easily because they simply kept updating their communist agitprop.

            That was years ago…maybe 2 years after the WTC attacks when I was researching Islam and revisiting the history of conflict in Israel. This is when I started to realize what the currents of conflict aimed against us and our constitution.

            And for the most part every time some lunatic comes along to defend the Fakestinians they use the same paradigms to place Israel as oppressor, no matter what particular lexicon they use. The themes are the same: Israel is bad because they’re winning. And because they’re aligned with the biggest “winners” in world history. The jihadis of course have other reasons to hate, like Jews rejecting sharia on the “Arab Peninsula,” but that doesn’t conflict with the communist agenda. Not right now anyway.

          • Doc2Go

            All too true. Perhaps there is a biological indicator, for mental defects. What I say here, is just my opinion, but it is based in some study of the history and politics of the humans discussed.

            As for Israel, I would like nothing better than for them to return to the ’67 or ’73 borders…as in 967 BC or 973 BC. Israel should deport the squatting Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, and other foreigners, and secure their borders against any incursion. Since “Palestine” was a cartographer’s invention anyway, use landmarks as points:

            I think the border should run from Arish southeast to Taba in a straight line, on the coast to Aqaba, then straight lines from Aqaba to Petra, Karak, Balqa, Irbid, Kanaker, Rachaiya, and ending in Jiyeh. I reckon the centres of decimated cities (and the roads between them) make durable landmarks for the country’s borders. Also, terrain and topography are everything, when it comes to defence.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Unfortunately the precedent was set in the bogus “land for peace” paradigm and because they gave back the Sinai we’re all supposed to think that such deals are deterministic and that you can’t break the land for peace formula. In reality, a just sovereign must control enough land to ensure their own peace.

            If enemies want peace it’s up to them. They clearly do not want peace and the idiots point to Sadat to try to “prove” otherwise. And what happened to Sadat?

          • Doc2Go

            I know, right? lol

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I think the border should run from Arish southeast to Taba in a straight line, on the coast to Aqaba, then straight lines from Aqaba to Petra, Karak, Balqa, Irbid, Kanaker, Rachaiya, and ending in Jiyeh. I reckon the centres of decimated cities (and the roads between them) make durable landmarks for the country’s borders. Also, terrain and topography are everything, when it comes to defence.”

            I agree that if they take land defending their nation that they should keep it. F the OIC and OPEC. The jihadis need us more than we need them if they want to drag the US in to the regional fights that they can’t win. Screw them.

            It feels sometimes like we never stopped appeasing AH.

          • Doc2Go

            Did you see the areas I described? The topography and terrain would then be eminently defensible for Israel. Giving land back, after a conflict, is simply not done. It just wouldn’t do. Land for peace has never delivered either to the non-aggressor. The old concept of Belligerent Nations might be due for a resurrection. If they are attacked, and have to mount a counter-attack, levelling some of the above-named cities in the process, they should never give them back. You don’t want Mexico borrowing any more ideas from these lunatics, than they already have.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Totally. That’s why neo-Marxism is so deadly because they can spin countless BS narratives while ignoring more relevant facts.

            “You don’t want Mexico borrowing any more ideas from these lunatics, than they already have.”

            Agreed. Although frankly I think the (criminal) oligarchy in Mexico is cool with the status quo. I don’t think they’ll go jihad on us. They have other ways of kind of making war on us and getting what they want.

          • Doc2Go

            Check with La Invasora and La Raza Communists. They are self-proclaimed invaders, to “reconquor” the entire American southwest. The comparisons between northern Mexico’s border cities and Gaza are staggering. Some recent estimates put the number of illegal alien persons in America between 30 and 32 million. Since I got high marks in my Statistical Analysis class, that would suggest one in every ten people you would meet on the street (on average) are already breaking the law, simply by being present. Almost all of them are Marxists, and the PRI ran Mexico for better than 70 years…

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I suppose they could join up with jihadis down there but I’m not sure how that would play out.

            I agree that mendacious Marxist narratives have infected the world.

          • Americana

            You’d really rather I not compile a list of your nonsensical sentences and contradictory thoughts… Moronic is right, far, far, far right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It doesn’t matter what moronic communists do once they’ve been outed. You’ve already been neutralized.

          • Americana

            Neutralized by you? In all your brilliance????? It’s pretty darn funny you’re bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine and pretending you were all sorts of prescient about the role Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld’s determination to modernize our international deployments and how that plays into our current dilemmas. Playing catch up is kind of fun, huh?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yes you silly twit. You’ve been exposed. You can quote from all the ancient online magazines you want to as distraction but it doesn’t make your own thinking valuable.

            You’re a propagandist. I’ll deal with you accordingly. Naturally you’ll squeal a lot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And by the way dumbass, I didn’t denounce Rumsfeld’s thinking at all. He, like you, simply does not play well with others. He’s a whole lot smarter than you though.

          • Americana

            Neutralized how? By you throwing your p*ssant comments and pret-a-porter preformed political slurs at me? They’re not acid. They’re only corrosive in your own little mind…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Lying about alleged constitutional rights to demand free or “socialized health care,” not corrosive? Lying about alleged economic expertise by summarizing the “threat” of emerging economic power of developing nations? Explaining how it’s predetermined that any emerging “rival” will be naturally feeding from the same finite supply of pie because wealth is a finite resource? Not corrosive? You’re about as “not corrosive” as Al Sharpton.

            Of course! Communists are liberators! Something about broken eggs and stuff but you’re gonna love the Affordable Omelet Act. Because if you can cite a “problem’ just make a law to fix it and refer to “right to happiness” in the US Constitution. Non-corrosively.

          • Americana

            Interesting that you’d claim anyone would bother lying about the threat posed by the economic power of developing nations when it’s pitted against that of developed nations. Interesting that you’d try to imply I believe wealth is finite when I don’t believe that’s true and I’ve never stated that’s true. However, it’s also true that NEW commercial ideas are where the big money lies if the new industry is one of those w/endless potential in contemporary world such as the creation of the new blood-testing technology by the Theranos company. There is often a REDUCTION in PROFITABILITY FOR COs that arrive later in an industry’s lifespan because there may be market saturation and there is far more market competition from established companies. Where did I ever endorse Communism? I’ve specifically said there are many, many reasons why Communism has failed in this century and that the world now has only 5 officially Communist countries, way down from what that total was at the height of the Cold War.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…claiming the existence of a conspiracy.”

            The “conspiracy” I allege is that the current US president doesn’t have America’s interests at heart except under a radical theory that by allowing our enemies to harm us we are somehow allowing the “cycle of violence” to dissipate. I understand the origins of these theories. I disagree.

            I think that he hides the details and the more evidence I have the better I can show what I’m worried about. I simply want more evidence.

            We must trust presidents to do their job. I don’t trust this one. He has not earned my trust. He has earned my distrust and my contempt.

            And you’re not even an American. You’re a silly British idiot that has been programmed by other self-hating Brits to instinctively think that various forms of Anglo-colonialism are at the root of all the world’s significant conflicts.

            We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

          • Americana

            I’m an American. I could run for President if I wished to do so. The fact I’m a dual-national doesn’t have anything to do w/my attitude toward the issues than that I see the issues from the U.K. side as well as that of the U.S. I haven’t been programmed by anyone, never mind be programmed by “other self-hating Brits to think that Anglo-colonialism is at the root of all the world’s regional conflicts”. No, I keep an open mind and I look at all the available evidence before I go off half-cocked and make ignorant remarks about the ability of our troops to respond in such an unlikely Rambo fashion to an event like Benghazi.

            If you HAD THE EVIDENCE or could construct ANY DETAILS of a realistic Benghazi conspiracy, you should have been able to display the conspiracy theory in all its unvarnished glory by now. The theory should make sense, should illustrate the complicity of the White House and Obama officials, etc., etc. You don’t HAVE ANY SUCH DETAILS and this continuing attempt to claim there is such evidence or that you’re “going to find such evidence,” is simply a way for certain conspiracy theorists to keep the Benghazi tragedy alive as a foreign policy scandal. The fact you tie Benghazi in w/all sorts of other Islamic conspiracy theories viz the POTUS literally makes NO SENSE. NONE WHATSOEVER.

          • Americana

            This is yet another of objectivefactsmatter all-time wacko sentences that completely misses the point of current American strategy in the foreign policy and military realms. Not only does his sentence mistakenly attribute American policy to INTENTIONALLY allowing our enemies to strike U.S. interests/persons, but it totally misses the point of American initiatives that address regional issues:

            (OFM) “The “conspiracy” I allege is that the current US president doesn’t have America’s interests at heart except under a radical theory that by allowing our enemies to harm us we are somehow allowing the “cycle of violence” to dissipate.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you’re confused. No revelations there.

          • Americana

            No, I’m not confused. I just continue to be amazed at your idiotic partisanship and your constant mongering of the Manchurian Candidate theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…your constant mongering of the Manchurian Candidate theory.”

            What does that even mean? Life is not all about movies as perfect analogies. So WTF do you think the actual theories are?

            It’s one thing if you generate straw men arguments by referring to lowest common denominator dissenters – like taking signs from protests and pretending that’s the best argument conservatives can muster. It’s entirely different to accuse me of conspiracy mongering. I’m very careful about what I say.

            So how about some quotes?

          • Americana

            I don’t believe the short and sweet messages from protests are the best arguments conservatives can muster, but, if you claim that you can muster better arguments, you’d BETTER MUSTER THEM. You don’t simply ratchet up the nasty rhetoric instead.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you want to participate constructively in the group you need to find your place. It’s not my responsibility to make a place for you. You were given the benefit of the doubt until you exhausted it.

          • Americana

            Well, it’s mutual because you’ve gone well beyond exhausting my patience as to your “participating constructively in the group”. YOU are not the GROUP. You do not speak for THE GROUP. YOU are an INDIVIDUAL who happens to be here. Stop representing yourself as the MONOLITHIC MAXIMUS MINI ME to whom I owe any intellectual noblesse oblige.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I read what others write as well as your bullcrap.

            You’re the only one arguing with me on these topics.

          • Americana

            i’m “not the only one arguing w/(OFM) on these topics” or the topics wouldn’t still be in the news w/new hearings attempting to be called every other month. Don’t borrow any of my (bullcr*p) theories and concepts in future then if you can’t recognize the validity of the content in my posts the very first time I write an opinion.

            You ridiculed my remarks on Sec/Def Donald Rumsfeld’s military realignment still being the linchpin on which our foreign missions depend as their final military option, yet here you are today and you’ve borrowed that idea from my posts and are selling it as if you agreed w/it from a year ago.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You ridiculed my remarks on Sec/Def Donald Rumsfeld’s military realignment still being the linchpin on which our foreign missions depend as their final military option, yet here you are today and you’ve borrowed that idea from my posts and are selling it as if you agreed w/it from a year ago.”

            Nope. Not accurate. Get over it.

          • Americana

            We’ll see, won’t we?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I see lots of things. I see a bullshitter baby that won’t take her meds.

            Zoloft should help a lot. Talk to your doctor and make sure you return for follow-ups as well. In about a month or too you can reread any threads that you want and you may learn some things about you’re-self.

          • Americana

            It’s remarkable that your approach to literally EVERYONE who contradicts you is to proclaim them mentally ill. I don’t take it personally though. It’s just your modus operandi and that of almost everyone else on several sites where advocacy groups are trying to make their case. It’d be better if you actually MADE YOUR CASE though instead of trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Don’t take it personally. Lots of people need help with drugs.

          • Americana

            Lots of people need help reevaluating their thinking as well. I’m not sure drugs would help you w/that or not. (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.” Lordy, but the bullcr*p does get deep in some people’s posts!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            Get your Greek friend to help you talk to people here. At least he can usually figure out the conversations. And he’s your buddy so he’s the perfect mediator.

            OK? So go and get some green tea and make an appointment with your doctor. Then if you really think there is more anyone has to say to you or you to them, ask your buddy for help articulating what it is that you want to get across. MK?

            Good luck.

          • Americana

            Get my Greek friend to help me talk to people here? Hmmm, who would that be?? Somehow, that Greek guy doesn’t sound like you hold him in high regard either so why on earth would I use him as a mediator or a translator?

            You’re the one in need of green tea. Maybe try some gingko biloba too for those memory lapses of yours… Good luck yourself, see you around!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He’s OK. Sounds like you’re the one that doesn’t have confidence in him. Or are you losing confidence in yourself?

            Get help from him and get a hold of a good medical doctor to start some planning.

          • Americana

            My Greek friend is who? hieronymous? I’ve got full confidence in hieronymous. He’s never written anything that’s incorrect or patently absurd. His background sounds as described and is corroborated by the concepts and insights in his posts. Ah, but I think hieronymous also recognizes that you’ve got a little issue w/deflection and name calling when you get caught up in one Catch-22 after another of your very own devising.

            As for me requiring the help of a doctor, I might make the same suggestion to you w/more reason. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that the “American military (isn’t) extremely flexible” in the ways they’re claiming the American military is flexible really needs to have themselves checked out for early onset Alzheimers or another form of dementia if they don’t see JUST HOW CRAZY that sentence is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve got full confidence in hieronymous.”

            Then why not ask him to help you summarize WTF you think you have to say that is so important? That’s what rational people do. They test things to find out where the problems are. Maybe the problem is with you.

          • Americana

            Lordy, but you do prevaricate and obfuscate and plain out lie and try to extricate yourself from awkward situations w/the CHEAPEST SHOTS possible. You really think I need someone else to come help me summarize my points when it’s obvious you’re been shot out of the water? Give it up already and cut the bullcr*p to the minimum. You told me to get my Greek friend to help me summarize, I didn’t say to myself, “Oh, better get Saul!” to help me make my case.

            hieronymous shows up at will and either confirms good points in someone’s posts or shoots them out of the water if they’re nonsensical. I’d take it that it’s a GOOD SIGN that he hasn’t yet shown up to BLAST ME for being wrong in my evaluation of the Benghazi situation. He’s always welcome to come and share his assessment of my posts because he’s honest, unbiased and he’s got the aim of clarifying the situation being discussed rather than defend biased opinions. As for you ending on this little two-sentence gem, (OFM) “They test things to find out where the problems are. Maybe the problem is with you,” it’s pretty clear that the PROBLEM LIES w/YOU. Anyone who says that (OFM) “The U.S. military is VERY FLEXIBLE” when he is writing about the return to a previous incarnation of U.S. military forces worldwide is NOT writing honestly about how rapidly that reassessment and redeployment of U.S. forces could occur.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Do want you want, spammer. I hope you get the medical help that you need.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Anyone who doesn’t recognize that the “American military (isn’t) extremely flexible” in the ways they’re claiming the American military is flexible really needs to have themselves checked out for early onset Alzheimers or another form of dementia if they don’t see JUST HOW CRAZY that sentence is.”

            Dumbass,

            With all of the options available to send air support, you can’t blame lack of capability or lack of flexibility on the military itself. We have drones, (relatively) nearby air bases and very large aircraft carriers. MK? It is flexible the way that I say. We could have a carrier stationed closer to adjust if we also know that for some reason air bases are not going to be prepared and so forth.

            We did not display flexibility. It’s not the military’s fault. It’s a leadership problem at the highest levels.

          • Americana

            There you go again, trying to pretend that your use of the word “flexibility” in regard to the U.S. military was in strategic reference to the response in Benghazi rather than The U.S. military being flexible and able to UPSCALE the ENTIRE WORLDWIDE U.S. military PRESENCE whenever the U.S. Joint Chiefs saw the need to rectify the position the U.S. military had gotten into under the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

            Lordy, but you do have a hard time accepting the reality of your own lack of tactical smarts in your VERY OWN SENTENCES… As for your ending sentence, (OFM) ” It’s not the military’s fault. It’s a leadership problem at the highest levels”, you’re back to the very same issue as to who is at fault for strategic decisions. The current POTUS following any such radical redeployment as the Rumsfeld Doctrine inherits the strategic posture of his predecessor until such time as the new Sec. of Def. and the regional commanders see the need to redesign the international deployment. Your sentence that “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” brings us right back to those TWO SENTENCES of YOURS being either MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE or MUTUALLY CONDEMNATORY of the failure of the regional U.S. military posture.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The military is more flexible than you pretend. Get over it, freak.

          • Americana

            Once again, that ultimate dismissal by OFM of him throwing a label at someone…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re dismissed because you offer nothing new. I understand that readers who care can read what you and I have already written.

            So give it a rest, OK spammer?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            Just let people read what we’ve already written. Stop spamming the board.

          • Americana

            Oh, I don’t need help articulating my arguments. You’re the one who needs help constructing cogent thoughts, never mind actually articulating them.

            Lordy, but this is yet another of your long line of great one-liners: (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.”

            I’d really like to get some U.S. generals to come on here and give you a piece of their mind about that little bit of wisdom arising from objectivefactsmatter’s thought process.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The US military is very flexible. We did not display flexibility. We seem to have other priorities.

            “I’d really like to get some U.S. generals to come on here and give you a piece of their mind about that little bit of wisdom arising from objectivefactsmatter’s thought process.”

            I have no doubt at all that the conversations would be far more constructive than simply having an idiotic communist ranting on and on to cover for her homeboy president.

          • Americana

            Oh, I think I’d take my chances w/military higher ups backing my perspective rather than yours. After all, so far that’s what the military higher ups have said — that there was no way to get assets to Benghazi in time to stop the assault on the consular compound. If Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith were dead within two hours, there were no assets that could have flown in to Benghazi in UNDER TWO HOURS, gotten around the consular compound and then FOUGHT THEIR WAY THROUGH into locating those two men prior to them dying of smoke inhalation. Those military who would come on here wouldn’t be covering their homeboy POTUS. They’d be explaining what WAS and wASN’T POSSIBLE TO DO for those Americans in Benghazi that night.

            But that’s not the point of criticizing that sentence of yours — (OFM) “The U.S. military is very flexible.” The point of criticizing that “tight Righty ranting” of yours is that your overarching idea when you wrote “The U.S. military is very flexible,” is that you’re CLAIMING the Rumsfeld Doctrine could be OVERCOME in a BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME, as if the U.S. military could restore its international presence within days of deciding we needed foreign bases and lots more troops in a particular region if ONLY the POTUS and the U.S. military had the foresight to do so. That’s a decision that involves every branch of government. It also involves a good many foreign governments unless you’re going to base all your Rapid Response Forces on U.S. warships.* It couldn’t happen overnight.

            *Oh, but that’s what the strategic decision was that came out of Benghazi, was that they needed to put Rapid Response Forces on each and every U.S. Navy vessel w/a Marine Expeditionary Force on board.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Back your perspective? Of course people love lunatics like you that help spread the excuses.

          • Americana

            Where have I spread lunatic excuses? You’re the lunatic who’s claiming that F-16s would have done the trick in Benghazi as if those attacking terrorists were complete rubes who didn’t understand they were in an urban battlefield where they could have disappeared into the surrounding buildings and STILL FIRED ON THE U.S. consular facility. You don’t even seem to realize that the terrorists would have been INSIDE THE CONSULAR COMPOUND by the time those F-16s arrived!! Besides which, really, you’d endorse an urban firefight where there’s strafing of the U.S. consular compound??? Yeah, that’s the way to save American lives. Lordy, but you simply persist and persist and persist in the insanity of your rumor-mongering. No matter how often your craziness is pointed out, you persist in trundling out instance after instance of implausible tactical scenarios.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Lunatic,

            Anyone can make excuses for not opposing our enemies. Anyone can make excuses for appeasement, communism and so forth. When you don’t’ even recognize the implications of your own arguments but rail on and on as if everyone that disagrees with you is crazy or ignorant you will possibly be classified as a lunatic.

          • Americana

            If you’re going to continue to try to shill the F-16 theory of scaring the pants off the terrorists in Benghazi, I’m going to continue posting Gen. Martin Dempsey’s remarks on the use of F=16s being an absolutely crazy azz useless tactic. What that remark of his has to do w/”appeasement, communism and so forth” is between you and the two hemispheres of your brain. I’ll believe Gen. Martin Dempsey over believing someone like yourself whenever I’m given a clear and obvious choice of who’s right and who’s wrong.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            A military general certainly would never adjust his POV under political pressure. NO WAY!!!

          • Americana

            A general would never voice opinions that could be shot down by other generals if the facts didn’t agree w/his statements.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s where equivocation comes in. Having answers that are difficult to shoot down doesn’t mean that they provide maximum illumination to the questions asked.

          • Americana

            If someone equivocates, it’s pretty darn easy to identify where the equivocation lies and what the subsequent questions should be to reveal what’s behind the equivocation. It’s like your above comment about the F-16s being refueled as if tankers are constantly in the air in the vicinity of where they were needed THAT NIGHT whether there are ongoing missions or not. The fact I’m able to point out that tankers would be in the air only if they’d been requested and they’d have had the time to fuel up themselves is a hole in your theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You just can’t stop yourself from making crap up.

          • Americana

            What crap did I make up in that previous post?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t even seem to realize that the terrorists would have been INSIDE THE CONSULAR COMPOUND by the time those F-16s arrived!! Besides which, really, you’d endorse an urban firefight where there’s strafing of the U.S. consular compound??? Yeah, that’s the way to save American lives. ”

            Dumbass communist,

            Why you bother to continue your rants as if anyone would take your word over Phil Handley’s is beyond my understanding. I can only hope that your medical team is able to help you work these issues out offline where you’re not bothering as many people.

            http://goefoundation.Org/index.php/eagles/biographies/h/handley-phil-hands/

            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/2013/colonel-phil-handley/betrayal-in-benghazi/

          • Americana

            Phil Handley is an idiot and a half if he thinks that doing strafing runs against an overrun American diplomatic compound is the way to save the day…

            Here’s my guy talking to Handley: Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12,Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your guy, eh?

            Yeah. Gates knows more about tactical use of fighter jets. In theory. Not only that but Gates has no political pressures to worry about.

            This article mostly concerns the F22, which in theory would the F15 and F16:

            http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.Org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1371

            Here’s a bit about Gate’s view of military “transformation.”

            http://www.wired.com/2008/03/gates-vs-usaf-o/

            There may not be an open war, quite yet, between the Secretary of Defense and the leadership of the Air Force. But there is serious, palatable tension. And a nasty game of brinksmanship over the use of drones in the Middle East has only made things worse.

            Last fall, the Pentagon’s civilian chiefs shot down an Air Force move to take over almost all of the military’s big unmanned aircraft. “There has to be a better way to do this,” complained Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley.

            —->>>> Things only got more tense when Gates said that the future of conflict is in small, “asymmetric” wars — >wars in which the Air Force takes a back seat to ground forces.< Then Gates noted that the Air Force’s most treasured piece of gear, the F-22 stealth fighter, basically has no role in the war on terror. And when a top Air Force general said the service was planning on buying twice as many of the jets — despite orders from Gates and the rest of the civilian leadership — he was rebuked for "borderline insubordination."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your guy, eh?

            Yeah. Gates knows more about tactical use of fighter jets. In theory. Not only that but Gates has no political pressures to worry about.

            This article mostly concerns the F22, which in theory would the F15 and F16:

            http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.Org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1371

            Here’s a bit about Gate’s view of military “transformation.”

            http://www.wired.Com/2008/03/g

            There may not be an open war, quite yet, between the Secretary of Defense and the leadership of the Air Force. But there is serious, palatable tension. And a nasty game of brinksmanship over the use of drones in the Middle East has only made things worse.

            Last fall, the Pentagon’s civilian chiefs shot down an Air Force move to take over almost all of the military’s big unmanned aircraft. “There has to be a better way to do this,” complained Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley.

            —->>>> Things only got more tense when Gates said that the future of conflict is in small, “asymmetric” wars — >wars in which the Air Force takes a back seat to ground forces.< Then Gates noted that the Air Force’s most treasured piece of gear, the F-22 stealth fighter, basically has no role in the war on terror. And when a top Air Force general said the service was planning on buying twice as many of the jets — despite orders from Gates and the rest of the civilian leadership — he was rebuked for "borderline insubordination."

          • Americana

            The controversy over which branch of the U.S. Armed Forces should be in charge of drones and the drone program has been a long-term problem and the tension has grown exponentially as the sophistication and capabilities of drones have technologically been enhanced. My feeling is that the Army and the Air Force will have to split the use of drones because there’s no reason why the Army can’t have CAS drones if they figure out their co-management of their drones vs the Air Force’s drones within the combat air space. As for inter-service arguments about what the immediate future of wars will be, it will be a while before terrorists become the major armed forces we faced in WW I and WW II.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gates and some others seem to think that we need fewer air superiority jets. Maybe so. Maybe he hesitates supporting the idea that a manned air superiority jet could make a difference in such a response goes against his other assertions that this role is diminished today unless facing another air force.

            This is why I said “the military is very flexible.” Air superiority jets can and are adapted for other missions. Of course there are finite limits. But just saying “F16 LOL” is bullshit.

            “As for inter-service arguments about what the immediate future of wars will be, it will be a while before terrorists become the major armed forces we faced in WW I and WW II.”

            They probably never will. But in today’s world they don’t need to.

          • Americana

            That’s NOT WHY you wrote “The U.S. military is very flexible” a few days ago. You wrote that sentence of yours in terms of the U.S. military being able to RECONSTITUTE ITS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER FOOTPRINT in order to prevent any more attacks on American interests. In effect, you were talking about the U.S. military rolling back to pre-Rumsfeld Doctrine times where we had large U.S. land-based forces in numerous bases around the world in the hopes that this reconstruction of U.S. military power would be inviolable. Do I actually need to produce those sentences of yours where you claim that this “would have been a rebuke of the Rumsfeld Doctrine”? You can’t simply lie your way out of your philosophical effed-up strategic statements because you find them embarrassing. Jets may be a fine military tool, they’re not the tool for all strategic situations. Stop pretending that’s the case and that they would have saved the day in Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 10 hours ago: “That’s NOT WHY you wrote “The U.S. military is very flexible” a few days ago. You wrote that sentence of yours in terms of the U.S. military being able to RECONSTITUTE ITS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER FOOTPRINT in order to prevent any more attacks on American interests.”

            Again, you’re going to want to talk to your doctors about some kind of anti-psychotic drug. Do it ASAP.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s NOT WHY you wrote “The U.S. military is very flexible” a few days ago. You wrote that sentence of yours in terms of the U.S. military being able to RECONSTITUTE ITS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER FOOTPRINT in order to prevent any more attacks on American interests. In effect, you were talking about the U.S. military rolling back to pre-Rumsfeld Doctrine times where we had large U.S. land-based forces in numerous bases around the world in the hopes that this reconstruction of U.S. military power would be inviolable.”

            See, if you try to speak for me I will accuse you of “making crap up.”

            Generally speaking, I don’t want to “roll back” anything in the military. I want to learn lessons and make adjustments based on what we experience. That’s just common sense if common sense ever existed.

            The second major point is that Benghazi isn’t some random backwater place. We intervened militarily. It’s stupid to just say “let the freedom fighters handle security” and more or less walk away.

            “Do I actually need to produce those sentences of yours where you claim that this “would have been a rebuke of the Rumsfeld Doctrine”?”

            It was a rebuke of the Rumsfeld doctrine because he had been too rigid and unwilling to learn from our experiences. For you to portray that as controversial or as me saying “we must roll back” is complete bullcrap. It’s you making crap up.

            “You can’t simply lie your way out of your philosophical effed-up strategic statements because you find them embarrassing.”

            I suggested Zoloft to you because it’s usually a good starting point for people that function fairly well but also have problems making crap up from their own imagination and continuing to insist that they have the upper hand on what others are “really” thinking. Of course you should do this under professional supervision. But it’s a serious suggestion.

            “Jets may be a fine military tool, they’re not the tool for all strategic situations. Stop pretending that’s the case and that they would have saved the day in Benghazi.”

            Jets have pros and cons. And as Jerry pointed out they are also highly visible and there are greater political implications when they do show up. The point in bringing up air support is that it’s a discussion that a lot of people can understand when they take measure of the administration’s excuses for not showing up or from apparently not planning well, getting caught off guard and so forth.

            People first and foremost were shocked that this happened out of nowhere based on the administration’s general explanation of the state of affairs in the region. And we had just recently destroyed the previous sovereign. We certainly could have secured Libya much better than we elected to. People want to parse that and test the excuses. These were allegedly either people we had just recently assisted, or they were aligned with AQ. So what’s the real deal? People are feeling misled, lied to and so forth. And there is no doubt that the lies continue. We’re just trying to nail down what happened. Why should we extend trust to people that work so hard with emotional outbursts to defend a malicious administration that is more concerned about global “social justice” than protecting American interests according to his oath of office? He’s not elected to play God for 4 years at a time.

            If you were actually representing the government right now with your attitude I would definitely look in to getting you fired. I’m not suggesting that’s the case. I’m just saying that in my view your attitude sucks and you’re not defending the military successfully in the way that you might be hoping to. Nor are you defending your worldview well at all. You act a little delirious and your defensive posture seems guided by emotional factors more than anything else. After a few weeks on Zoloft you and Jerry might actually make a pretty good team.

            Keep hope alive.

          • Americana

            You accuse me of writing crap when you don’t even have the guts to stick by what you originally wrote on a particular subject? What a card sharp you are! NOT. No matter how many times you deconstruct and reconstruct subsequent sentences using the words “U.S. military” and “flexibility” in order to deflect attention from your original crazy zzz meaning, you’re not going to be able to erase your original statement along w/its original meaning. If you don’t have the guts to stick by what you wrote because it was shown to be foolish in the extreme, you don’t have the guts to stand by anything.

            But, go ahead, give yourself the ego boost of claiming I’m demonstrating an attitude “that would cause you to look into getting me fired if I were representing the government” at this point in time. What a HOOT that would be if you were ever able to sell that line of bullpuckey to anyone up the government’s chain of command!!!!!

            I’d fire you — ON THE SPOT — if I was your superior for your dishonesty and dissimulation and your inability to rationally analyze any and all issues. The fact you persist in trying to rephrase your original sentence and its meaning — that the flexibility of the U.S. military’s international stance is AT THE DISCRETION of the incoming U.S. President to determine its final disposition — is simply fantasy. Also sheer fantasy is the concept that there is enough discretionary money available that the ENTIRE U.S. military long-range planning can be rejiggered substantially by each incoming President and the incoming Secretary of Defense. The fact you subsequently have pretended you meant something totally different than your original meaning (that the U.S. President is the one who controls the U.S. military presence around the world at his sole discretion) indicates you haven’t got a clue about the interrelationships among the Executive Branch, the military branches and Congress. Your lack of guts and unethical behavior also indicate there’s a good chance that should you become one of those individuals who became wrapped up in a Benghazi-scale event, you’d throw others under the bus in order to save yourself, especially if your own faulty reasoning helped cause the catastrophe.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 9 minutes ago: “You accuse me of writing crap when you don’t even have the guts to stick by what you originally wrote on a particular subject? What a card sharp you are! NOT. No matter how many times you deconstruct and reconstruct subsequent sentences using the words “U.S. military” and “flexibility” in order to deflect attention from your original crazy zzz meaning, you’re not going to be able to erase your original statement along w/its original meaning. If you don’t have the guts to stick by what you wrote because it was shown to be foolish in the extreme, you don’t have the guts to stand by anything.”

            What? Jerry and I already agreed where the discrepancy comes from. It’s a fundamental difference in how much resources should be made available.

            Try to keep up with the conversation. The military IS flexible. It is dependent on funding among other things. Its funding is WAY more flexible than communists think because they fundamentally don’t understand how our hegemony can (though not automatically) support free trade that the entire world benefits from and appreciates.

            Put another way, we generally all agree that the military is flexible but there are massive disagreements in how to fund it. And there are further disagreements about how wise it is to remain visibly very powerful.

            So you’re missing the point just about every time.

            If you have some allegation about something I said that you claim does not make sense, put up or shut up. Because right now you are MAKING CRAP UP in your head.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But, go ahead, give yourself the ego boost of claiming I’m demonstrating an attitude “that would cause you to look into getting me fired if I were representing the government” at this point in time. What a HOOT that would be if you were ever able to sell that line of bullpuckey to anyone up the government’s chain of command!!!!!”

            You might be scared if you ever had to find out just how persuasive I can be. But it’s just a rhetorical statement.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’d fire you — ON THE SPOT…”

            Of course you would. I would never work under someone like you.

            “…if I was your superior for your dishonesty and dissimulation and your inability to rationally analyze any and all issues.”

            So you’re mad that I thought Mach one was equal to light-speed and expected the laser-equipped F16s to take out the jihadis from stand off range. It was a good idea. The world is just not ready for communist geniuses like me.

            “The fact you persist in trying to rephrase your original sentence and its meaning — that the flexibility of the U.S. military’s international stance is AT THE DISCRETION of the incoming U.S. President to determine its final disposition — is simply fantasy.”

            I’m not rephrasing. I’m trying to rectify your crazy lies. Now you’re making up more crap. Obviously POTUS is not God. His directives have huge influence. He can reduce our or cap our flexibility beyond what is wise to do.

            How hard is that to understand? You’re getting dumber by the minute.

            “Also sheer fantasy is the concept that there is enough discretionary money available that the ENTIRE U.S. military long-range planning can be rejiggered substantially by each incoming President and the incoming Secretary of Defense.”

            Whatever your definition of “enough” is it is based on the same erroneous worldview that let you to dramatically declare that the US will inevitably get poorer as the developing world gets richer. That’s the ultimate point.

            So yeah, the military really is a lot more flexible than you think it is. Thank you for continuing to prove my point about how your erroneous assumptions drive your opinions. And this is why it’s relevant to point out your idiotic ideas on macroeconomics.

            “The fact you subsequently have pretended you meant something totally different than your original meaning (that the U.S. President is the one who controls the U.S. military presence around the world at his sole discretion) indicates you haven’t got a clue about the interrelationships among the Executive Branch, the military branches and Congress. Your lack of guts and unethical behavior also indicate there’s a good chance that should you become one of those individuals who became wrapped up in a Benghazi-scale event, you’d throw others under the bus in order to save yourself, especially if your own faulty reasoning helped cause the catastrophe.”

            I have no need to throw innocent people under any buses. Start loyal to the US Constitution and stay that way. If people like you end up under a bus it’s not my fault.

            Your fantasies are bizarre and honestly not even that entertaining. Your short quips are a little better but I guess that’s only me being generous.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You really are a kook.

          • Americana

            Oh, look, Our Guide in All Things Political sides w/you… Vostra Guida, my azz.

          • Doc2Go

            Please, check my MRP, below. Thanks, Mate.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Ah, yet another post that’s been eliminated… The moderators have been active today! I really don’t care if you can’t accept the report as definitive. I’ve been reading the Benghazi timeline and looking at world maps for years and I don’t see how any American Rapid Response Forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save those two facilities from experiencing the losses they did. That is not just my opinion. hieronymous has written out a post that explains the Benghazi tragedy in detail. You’ve got a choice. You either factually rebut hieronymous’ presentation or you don’t. Either the facts run in your favor or they don’t.

          • Doc2Go

            Doc2Go Americana • 7 days ago
            Rambo? Seriously? We aren’t discussing a film fantasy. We are discussing protecting American interests, lives and property. To say that there wasn’t time to rescue or reinforce either position is to assume that the threat was undisclosed to the administration until the initial attack was launched. That is patently ridiculous.
            I am reposting, because you evidently forgot how I got into this discussion with you. You continually base the time-line for response as starting when the first shots were fired. That is just like a Liberal Democrat Socialist, isn’t it? Make up asinine rules for our troops to adhere to in combat, requiring them not to fire on an enemy until they have been fired upon. Then, when western troops almost always sustain the initial casualties, you go on and on and on about how much you “care” for the troops, and how you understand the complexities of modern warfare better than they did.
            The RRF was formed, equipped, and trained for just such an event. The parts of successful military solutions are assessment of intelligence data, prepositioning men and materiel within reach, securing the element of surprise, and applying overwhelming force pressure to a particular area. You have to maintain the pressure on the enemy until the mission is accomplished. One need not be an expert, to appreciate those processes, and understand how vital they are to achieving any degree of success.
            Your assessment of Rumsfeld Doctrine belies the fact that your beloved CNC has NO military experience or training, has demonstrated utter disdain for the troops, and had four years to change the doctrine, and pursue a different rationale. He didn’t. Not because he is incompetent, though he may be. He didn’t, because it was in his interests not to. His interests are not in seeing America succeed on any level. Force strength reductions, base closures, political purges of the staff level officer corps, and projection of America as weak or weakening are his goals.
            That is the reason Conservatives decry his absences from daily briefings. That is the reason no one anywhere trusts him. If American interests, lives, and property are at risk, he is not just comfortable with that, he is in favour of it. A real CNC would have been attending every briefing, and missing out on some very expensive golf. A real CNC would have made sure that he could carry out his Constitutional duty to protect American interests, lives, and property, long before Benghazi.
            America did not have a real CNC that day. America didn’t have a real CNC for four years, prior to Benghazi. What America had was a myopic Leftist agitator in chief. The ambassador knew it was not safe. The SoS knew it wasn’;t safe. The RRF knew it wasn’t safe. Two former SEALS damn sure knew it wasn’t safe. These members all knew it wasn’t safe, for months. The CnC was the only one with the power; to tell the American military what to do, when, and for how long. The fact that he took no interest in Benghazi is ultimately why it IS a scandal.
            -Doc

          • Americana

            That is NOT the case at all as far as my understanding of the situation goes. As for me being insulting about our current Rambo mentality about our success rate vs what is actually possible w/our sophisticated American military, we don’t and WON’T ALWAYS WIN THE DAY because we’re the ones theoretically wearing the white hats. (You don’t like the fact the American military forces are fallible, analyze how it is we managed to rescue one group of hostages two weeks ago but then our next rescue attempt went horribly wrong and an American hostage and a South African hostage were killed by their captors. They approached this second hostage site in helicopters and were detected.) The timeline as far as I’m concerned INCLUDES the specific but vague threat which the Libyan militia allies/mercenaries voiced to Ambassador Stevens in telling him to leave Benghazi before the attack. Amb. Stevens was told there were militias that were gunning to cause a problem for the consular facility, the fact Ambassador Stevens ignored their warnings and came to Benghazi anyway is part and parcel of the whole messy situation.

            If you think having “a real CIC that day” would have made the crucial strategic difference, I’ve got to say I find that pathetically dishonest. Besides which, you’ve just written a long post detailing that the threat had been made weeks before so the actions that needed to be taken to counter the specific threat in Libya would have had to HAVE BEEN TAKEN DAYS BEFORE THE ATTACK. This likely should have included Ambassador Stevens insisting that the mercenary militia increase their presence in his security detail or along his route as well as their patrolling the perimeter of the consular area for several blocks. Quite a few of the MILITARY STEPS that should have been taken to protect the Benghazi consular facility are steps that Ambassador Stevens and his American security force should have insisted on COORDINATING w/THEIR LIBYAN MILITIA ALLIES/MERCENARIES.

          • Doc2Go

            I lay the blame where I see it. If one of my troops shoots a civilian, for no reason, I would be in A Lot of Hot Water. The same goes for the military of any nation state, and her CnC. If I fail to prepare my troops for an operation, then I am responsible for the operation not coming off. He is responsible, and I lay the blame for the failing at his feet.

            As for the Ambassador: He elected to stay, leave, return, and stay because he believed he had an important job to do. He clearly wasn’t obtuse about the warnings, or suicidal. As for the former SEAL members, it is difficult–in the moment–to overcome a lifetime of culture and training. The ethos of these men ran completely against leaving an American in harms way, regardless of the security risks to themselves and their fixed position.

            Blaming men who did the right thing at the bottom of the chain of command does nothing to short circuit the connexion between wilful ignorance at the top, and the loss of American lives.

            “…the actions that needed to be taken to counter the specific threat in Libya would have had to HAVE BEEN TAKEN DAYS BEFORE THE ATTACK.”

            [Again, I have to ask you to stop shouting, as I have been listening.]

            That was my whole point! You have to look in the time-line prior to the firefight, to find a corrective countermeasure. My thinking is that one cannot wait for the first shot to take action, or the situation becomes totally bollocksed in short order. There wasn’t a shortage of intelligence data or assessment available at the WH…just one “man” who refused to look at it. That is why it will remain a scandal, and why it can only get worse, for him.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Well, now you’re laying claim to being in charge of troops? You’re in the military but yet you don’t question some of these simple facts about the timing for dispatching planes and needing to have tankers fueled and at the ready?? I’m finding this claim of yours exceedingly hard to believe given the circumstances of you overlooking certain mandatory facts about having refueling tankers in the air at the beck and call of F-16s in order to execute the F-16 mission over Benghazi. As for your next point, that if one of YOUR TROOPS were to shoot a civilian that the blame to some extent lies w/you, that MAY or MAY NOT BE TRUE depending on the circumstances of the shooting and whether or not there was an existing state of war. After all, they haven’t arrested the CiC of the American army units in Japan when troops under their command have committed heinous sexual crimes and they don’t necessarily punish any of the active army unit commanders if civilians are injured or killed. The Army holds an inquiry and if there is sufficient reason to proceed to trial, they do so. If you were the Commander who set up the rules of engagement or the base rules and you failed to correctly demand that your soldiers executer their patrol duties such that a civilian was shot, perhaps you should suffer **some legal penalty.** But that would be because YOU were the actual OPERATIONAL Commander in charge of a unit.

            For you to demand that Pres. Obama, as the symbolic Commander in Chief, assume TACTICAL BLAME for what occurred is simply UNREALISTIC because that’s simply not where the blame lies, much to your chagrin. If you are the President you are more than ONCE REMOVED from being in direct charge of the military. Unlike your example of yourself, where you’re presenting yourself as the CiC of actual forces w/whom you have a command relationship. Pres. Obama may hold the title of Commander in Chief but that doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for verifying that there has been a feasibility test of all the contingency planning by the military for such an operation that was Benghazi.

            Those agencies and individuals who were responsible for setting up whatever the plans were for Benghazi have learned lessons at a terrible cost but these are neither the final lessons the U.S. and its military will learn at the hands of these idiotic jihadists nor is the last time the U.S. will be caught flat-footed by jihadists. It’s much easier for them to operate under our radar until the very point where they pull the trigger than it is for us to counter their efforts before they’re reached the critical stage of execution.

          • Doc2Go

            “For you to demand that Pres. Obama, as the symbolic Commander in Chief, assume TACTICAL BLAME for what occurred is simply UNREALISTIC because that’s simply not where the blame lies, much to your chagrin. If you are the President you are more than ONCE REMOVED from being in direct charge of the military.”

            Is he not the chief of the executive branch, in America, as well as commander of her armed forces? Does someone I am unaware of outrank him, as CnC (or CIC, as you prefer)? Did someone else have more information and assessment data than what was made available to him (which he refused to consult)? Could someone else (lower on the chain of command) have gone on their own authority, and moved a single person, system, or vehicle, without his approval, and “saved the day”? Not as I understand it. The CnC was the only one with the power; to tell the American military what to do, when, and for how long…as I previously stated.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Ah, I didn’t think you’d try to continue to claim that you were actually in charge of troops nor continue w/the patriotic-sounding line that you’d feel obligated to take the blame as the CiC if one of “your troops shot a civilian”. That fantasy sort of just disappeared between your previous post and this one, the fantasy that you’re a commander who’s in charge of a vast number of troops w/itchy trigger fingers?

            I think I’ll clue hieronymous in to the fact that you need a definitive answer from him as to how the military reaction and response would work in the case of this type of threat to an American diplomatic mission. You obviously need intensive instruction on who is responsible for what between the Executive Branch, the military branches and the diplomatic corps.

          • Doc2Go

            No, Dolt. I chose to ignore the bulk of your idiocy which was directed at me, to answer your idiocy which was directed at the subject at hand. Don’t congratulate or flatter yourself, just yet. Bloody cob.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            One last thought. The most terrible aspect of this event, to me, was that Ambassador Stevens was highly regarded among many Libyans who were personal friends. I believe Amb. Stevens was relying on his personal relationship w/this militia w/whom the U.S. had a mercenary relationship to carry him through this rough spot of an actual threat. The fact the U.S. had ceased paying the mercenary militia’s salaries and the militia may have chosen to “Stand Down” on their own recognizance as a work stoppage show of force is sickening. You are asking to micro-manage diplomats when you attempt to prevent Ambassador Stevens from freely executing his duties despite knowing there was a threat. Amb. Stevens was ultimately the man who crafted the form of his security detail. By turning down uniformed men and asking for civilian contractors, Amb. Stevens triggered a sequence of events that I’m sure he wished he could have revisited the night of the attack. But the reality is that we have too few military and military contractors providing security at facilities that are not battle-hardened, secure facilities.

          • Doc2Go

            “You are asking to micro-manage diplomats when you attempt to prevent Ambassador Stevens from freely executing his duties despite knowing there was a threat.”

            I suggested nothing of the kind. I observed that he was not ignorant of the risks, but believed (I think nobly) in the importance of his mission, there. I will go one better on your theory, though. Who is to say that the local hired guns didn’t want to be in a firefight with their family members, friends, and neighbours, and so colluded with the attackers, knowing full well that there was no pay disbursed to dead men? They likely knew that the Ambassador took them for friends, when they were (more typical of the region) anything but.

            Prepositioning additional troops buys time for RRF and other options. There were not enough armed USG personnel (on the ground) in the area, in spite of warnings in the months prior. Even if that had been rectified as little as 72 hours prior to the firefight, we might have been treated to an interview with the Ambassador on CNN, about his harrowing exploits, there, and his subsequent departure alive. I would rather have seen that, myself. My contention is that the CnC wouldn’t have liked it as much as you or I would have.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            (Doc) “My contention is that the CnC wouldn’t have liked it as much as you or I would have.”

            I’d love to not have to write this but I find that sentence of yours utterly contemptible. I’m leaving to chill, I’m not willing to write out my opinion this evening of the underlying thinking behind that sentence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go • 5 hours ago
            “I’d love to not have to write this…”

            More kookiness from you.

          • Americana

            Never any kookiness from me but you’re welcome to imply there is. This sort of assertion makes you look ever more kooky over time.

          • Doc2Go

            It is all part and parcel of his programme. How can you not see that? Are you able to see this, at all? You work very, very hard, to miss the point, Ms.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I don’t “work hard at missing the point”. Instead, I work very hard at picking apart all points that anyone presents in an attempt to sway my opinion of events. Eventually, when I do enough culling of details, I arrive at the likely reality of a situation. Then I wait to discover later revelations about the event.

            As for your presumption that Pres. Obama wants to assist the Muslim world in setting up a Caliphate and transitioning to sharia law in the U.S., I find it laughably unrealistic. Pres. Obama and his mother had the chance to convert to islam and they didn’t choose to convert. His mother was a free spirit and it’s extremely unlikely that she would have allowed him to be influenced by such a socially tyrannical religion as Islam. She also divorced his father so she had no reason whatsoever to remain w/any allegiance to Islam whatsoever. In fact, based on what my sisters have done while living in Islamic countries, I’m pretty sure she fought tooth and nail to maintain their distance from Islamic doctrine. My oldest sister went around Saudi Arabia in her birthday suit beneath her abaya. She found all sorts of ways to circumvent the stupidities demanded by Saudi authorities and the religious police.

          • Doc2Go

            “As for your presumption that Pres. Obama wants to assist the Muslim world in setting up a Caliphate and transitioning to sharia law in the U.S., I find it laughably unrealistic.”

            I never suggested that. The presumption here lies in your attempt to attribute that notion to me. Carry on, with the ad hominem and straw man tilting at windmill idiocy…just leave me out of it. Caliphate…riiiiiiight. Sharia…indeed. Bloody obtuse.

            As for your sisters… No. You know what? I will not touch that. Nothing I could say would bring honour to what you wrote. Cheers, Miss. G’night.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Another post that’s vanished into thin air. Quite interesting… this death of uncomfortable posts. I denigrate conspiracy theories if they don’t contain persuasive information that makes me believe in the conspiracy theory. The Bengazhi conspiracy theories simply don’t pan out. The timeline doesn’t pan out, the reasons for allowing Amb. Stevens to die because of the gun-running doesn’t pan out. OMG, that’s the conspiracy theory that absolutely breaks my heart. Because everyone who’s selling that one is also generally selling the Iranian Quds force as being the folks behind the actual militia that carried out the Benghazi attacks. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

            Oh, I’m different all right. I want that other ‘P’ word — proof. Not propaganda. Produce proof for all your theories and I’ll happily change my mind. Produce material that is not persuasive of what your theory is about historical events and I’ll continue to argue against your perspective.

          • Doc2Go

            I have had it, with you. You are living proof that one can lead a man to logic, but you can’t make him think. I have told you where the official and public sources of information (the proof) are, but you are too intellectually lazy to read them. You will continue to argue against my perspective, In Spite Of the facts, because you have romanticised being a contrarian. Anyone who fails to agree with every one of your pronouncements is dealt derision, condescension, and pomposity. I can look at the same data, and arrive at different understandings from yourself, on a variety of issues. Where any two or more gather, there will likely be at least three points of view represented. Read What Actually Happened, and get back to me, with even the barest modicum of humility, and I will listen to what you have to say.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Oh, please, now I’m a contrarian!??? As for me “being too intellectually lazy to read them,” not at all. The fact is I come to different conclusions than do you. As for you not being the one first responsible for dishing out “derision, condescension, and pomposity,” that’s your stock in trade. Or don’t you remember having to apologize to me because you’d misattributed a comment to me and called me all sorts of names? You’ve just returned to your stock in trade routine in this post after fighting against your basest debate tactics for a day or two but, once again, you’ve fallen into your typical bad habits. There’s no need for humility just as there’s no need for pomposity so cure yourself of the ‘P’ word affliction and get back to me. I’ll be here.

          • Doc2Go

            “Oh, please, now I’m a contrarian!??? As for me “being too intellectually lazy to read them,” not at all.”

            You being a contrarian is not a new development. All of your discourse has been devoted to arguing with people who fail to agree with every single thing you say. By the way: Are you claiming to have read them? I sincerely doubt it. You would have to read that information through some very red goggles, indeed, to honestly come to such a different position.

            “Or don’t you remember having to apologize to me because you’d misattributed a comment to me and called me all sorts of names?”

            Indeed, I do remember. I remember that I did not have to apologise, but I did. Ever since, you have reminded me (with regularity) that No good deed goes unpunished. You have made me to regret it.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            What a crazy loon you choose to be when you really let yourself go! Why on earth would I “romanticize being a contrarian”? There’s no kudos in being a contrarian if you don’t have the facts on your side. In that case, you’d simply be a windbag w/a cause. As for reading material you recommend and being aware of the Communist/Socialist threat, there will always be political flux in this country, just as there will always be political fuxx in this country. I don’t think there is a lack of preservation of American ideals in this country. I think there’s a lack of understanding of what preservation of those American ideals means in terms of the development of a highly complex society. We are NOT the American states of 1776. We are another size of animal entirely and those ideals must be seen as they are applied in their modern forms.

          • Doc2Go

            Crazy Loon. Right… Got it, Guv’nuh. Very complex…I see. Bollocks. The American states of 1776 set the course for the entire endeavour. They did so more intelligently than any of the Socialist drool that passes for Political Science, in modern Universities. Checks and balances, division of powers, keep the government out of the churches. No, actually it was brilliant and farsighted. And the fact that that is the case infuriates you, doesn’t it? How dare they write something so enduring, so versatile, and so sophisticated, before you were e’en a wee glint, in your Daddy’s eye, eh? The bollocks…

            -Doc

          • Americana

            Don’t you dare pair up a post on Benghazi w/comments on Socialists. Do you know how ridiculous that pair-up is?? Try to hold onto some shred of credibility and brains and separate the two things — Socialism and Benghazi — in your own mind. You should certainly be able to defend your perspective on Benghazi by focusing on the facts (if the facts run in your favor) just as hieronymous has done. hieronymous hasn’t ever needed to finish up his posts on Benghazi by claiming anything about “Socialism and Socialists and its proponents, apologists and mindless sycophants”. Hmmmm, I wonder what that indicates? Could it be that hieronymous has got a brain and effectively uses it?

          • Doc2Go

            “Don’t you dare pair up a post on Benghazi w/comments on Socialists.”

            Why not? Who are in the administration, and could have prevented Benghazi? Liberal Democrat Socialists. If you recall, that was part of my curiosity as to who was responsible (or irresponsible) for allowing it to occur. The timelines are all well in your favour Only When you start them at the beginning of the first firefight, rather than in the months leading up to the event. There was ample time to prepare, and it was squandered, so that American lives were also squandered. Do not presume that you can tell me what to dare or not dare to say…ever. Your pomposity is showing from under your skirts.

            “Hmmmm, I wonder what that indicates? Could it be that hieronymous has got a brain and effectively uses it?”

            Your inference is that I do not. Two people can look at identical data and arrive at very different understandings about its import. Another point to consider is that some people are satisfied with these reports, and some are not. I generally fall into the latter category, assuming that there is more information available through further investigation. I will not arrive at a conclusion about the event prematurely, regardless of any amount of haranguing and/or cajoling from you or anyone else.

            -Doc

          • Americana

            I’ll leave this post of yours to hieronymous to rebut. I don’t think I could handle myself politely.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana Doc2Go • 2 days ago: “I’ll leave this post of yours to hieronymous to rebut. I don’t think I could handle myself politely.”
            What happened to the Bat Signal?

          • Americana

            Boy, our American military are all Socialist Democrats? Who’dve guess it! Those are the folks who tell the Commander in Chief whether or not they can move assets to anywhere they’re needed in case of an emergency. You think those Socialist Democrat military guys in charge of Africom are going to lie about what units are where so that they could allow Americans in Benghazi to die?

          • Doc2Go

            Bollocks.
            Words mean things. Is that what I wrote? No. I was referring explicitly to the administration…and you knew it…further enhancing your credentials as a person who is intellectually disingenuous.

            -Doc

          • Pete

            “Boy, our American military are all Socialist Democrats?”

            - Her Royal Pompasity, Americana

            Now but the ones at the top are like the CINC and many on the CINC’s top advisors.

          • Americana

            Le Fin. Le Fin. Le Fin.

          • Americana

            Well, you have to admit, you don’t have the brains (____???) does if you can’t analyze the Benghazi timeline and come to the one conclusion. As for “ample time to prepare in Benghazi”, there were a HUGE NUMBER OF ATTACKS on American diplomatic facilities during those few months prior to Benghazi, would you have the State Dept. reduce the coverage at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli in order to beef up the coverage in Benghazi? For how long would you allow the beefed-up troop numbers to remain in Benghazi before moving them back to counter a threat to the embassy in Tripoli? What about leaving embassies in other countries undefended in order to beef up embassy security in the Middle East and North Africa? After all, there have been massive attacks in other regions.

            You’re right, two people can look at identical data and come up w/different understandings about its import. But one may look at the information extremely dispassionately and clearly and the other may look at the information through an illogical, political bias that has no possible grounding in the reality of such an event as Benghazi. The very fact you have to torturously twist information in order to claim that Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton and other Socialist Democrats had something to gain by allowing Benghazi to happen is indicative of your political biases dictating your reasoning. None of you have successfully explained WHY it is that anyone in the Obama administration would think it smart to assist al Qaeda in killing the American ambassador in Libya. And don’t bring up the gun-running because that’s just asinine. Besides which, there was no guarantee such an attack would be a success. If you’re going to kill the Ambassador, you’ve got to make a plan that’s guaranteed to kill the Ambassador. The fact Ambassador Stevens died from smoke inhalation rather than died by gunshot or was captured tells you that the attack wasn’t an unqualified military victory on the part of the jihadis. If you want to COOK UP CONSPIRACY THEORIES, make sure the recipe tests out.

          • Americana

            As things stand, I’d start the present analysis of the present defensibility of U.S. facilities and diplomatic facilities w/Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was the Secretary of Defense who started the U.S. Armed Forces down this road of fewer bases and a reliance upon Rapid Response Forces. Every regional CIC and the Joint Chiefs have since concurred w/that contraction and reduction and revision in forces. That contraction and redeployment of U.S. military forces doesn’t seem to have radically changed under Pres. Obama

            Care to dispute the long-range planning of the U.S. military and claim that it means that they’re as ultra-responsive and as nimble in the face of an adversary that is exceedingly nimble because all al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorists have to do is move some troops into position, build a truck bomb or two and they’re good to go? You seem to ignore the fact that all terrorists have to do is select the weakest link at any one time and they’re set.

          • Doc2Go

            “Every regional CIC and the Joint Chiefs have since concurred w/that contraction and reduction and revision in forces.”

            Bollocks. You mean the compliant staff officers who were left after the last six years of purges? They concurred, eh? Inconceivable! You really haven’t any idea how DoD or MoD work, do you? It is not a zero sum game, as you assert. Men and materiel can be projected virtually anywhere they need to be, from anywhere they are, with enough time.

            The enemy does in fact put months of preparation into their attacks, as they are chronically short-staffed, as well. They had mortar support available virtually without delay, since targets had been selected, reconnoitred, and ranged in advance. That does not happen five minutes prior to an assault.

            -Doc

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As things stand, I’d start the present analysis of the present defensibility of U.S. facilities and diplomatic facilities w/Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was the Secretary of Defense who started the U.S. Armed Forces down this road of fewer bases and a reliance upon Rapid Response Forces. Every regional CIC and the Joint Chiefs have since concurred w/that contraction and reduction and revision in forces. That contraction and redeployment of U.S. military forces doesn’t seem to have radically changed under Pres. Obama”

            Partly true. What do you call the 2007 surge but an indirect rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision?

          • Americana

            The 2007 surge was NOT a rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision. What would have been a rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision is if the Joint Chiefs had requested that the U.S. RETURN to the bases it had abandoned at the very beginning of this process of contraction of U.S. international readiness and deployments. The Joint Chiefs are still very enthusiastic about the concept of Rapid Response Forces being the backbone of American international military response.

            The 2007 surge took place in ONE COUNTRY and had FINITE geopolitical and military aims. The 2007 troop surge didn’t serve to change ANYTHING about the international readiness situation for the Rapid Response Forces upon which the State Department is relying for their military backstop when they face an imminent threat.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The 2007 surge was NOT a rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision. What would have been a rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision is if the Joint Chiefs had requested that the U.S. RETURN to the bases it had abandoned at the very beginning of this process of contraction of U.S. international readiness and deployments.”

            Of course it was. Not only that but these decisions have been controversial from the start. Jeez. I thought you were smarter than that. Well, not really.

            From the very outset many insiders objected to the entire approach as delusional with respect to how much technology and updated approaches could truly replace a strong occupation with high troop levels or “boots on the ground.”

            http://www.nytimes.Com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html?_r=0

          • Americana

            Again, you’re a BB historical revisionist. Don’t you recall being one of those to ridicule my very first mention of the Rumsfeld Doctrine having been the largest single contributor to the deaths in Benghazi? From the outset of the Rumsfeld Doctrine’s sales pitch, many in the U.S. military have recognized that the Rumsfeld Doctrine was an UNAVOIDABLE FINANCIAL NECESSITY. The U.S. military cannot have both an enormous standing force spread around an enormous number of international bases along w/all the elite weaponry it wants. There just isn’t the cash flow. Besides, why should the U.S. be the one to be spending the vast majority of the money on these international bases when the countries that host them aren’t paying the bulk of their construction, maintenance and logistics costs to keep them running?

            The fact the U.S. military has had to face the reality of the growing insistence of Muslim countries that the U.S. not have occupation forces inside their borders is part and parcel of the American revision of its international deployment vis-a-vis the Middle East. It’s why the U.S. has had to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia and move them into a new base in Qatar. The regrets of the U.S. military over having troops stationed in western Europe for decade after decade without having any substantive use for them other than as a deterrence wasn’t reason enough for the U.S. to continue to spend our own funds to maintain the European bases.

            Look at the link below:

            http://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/31/the-iraq-war-surge-myth-returns-2/

            Thus, the myth grew that Bush’s “surge” had brought Iraqi violence under control and the United States to the brink of “victory.” Gen. David Petraeus, who took command of Iraq after Bush yanked Casey and Abizaid, was elevated into hero status as a military genius. Also, Defense Secretary Robert Gates received the encomium of “wise man” for implementing the “surge” after Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld in November 2006 for standing behind his field generals and suggesting a faster U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Again, you’re a BB historical revisionist. Don’t you recall being one of those to ridicule my very first mention of the Rumsfeld Doctrine having been the largest single contributor to the deaths in Benghazi?”

            I rarely read your boring comments unless you say something dangerous.

            Benghazi happened much later. Blaming Rumsfeld rather than #44 and his team is stupid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It did not end the controversies but it was a rebuke.

            Idiot.

          • Americana

            If the surge occurred in ONE COUNTRY, did not intend the EMPLACEMENT of TROOPS in PERMANENT FACILITIES, w/plans for the U.S. to leave them there FOR DECADES, and did not INCLUDE THE PERMANENT RE-STRAGEZING of U.S. response then it wasn’t a “rebuke.” meant to indict the Rumsfeld philosophy. It was a TEMPORARY, TACTICAL DECISION made that was applicable to ONE BATTLEGROUND that had experienced setbacks from renewed assaults by the recovered enemy that had rededicated itself to re-taking that territory.

            You could maintain that the fact there was an additional Rapid Response Force that was chosen to be based at another base closer to Libya was also a “rebuke” of the Rumsfeld Doctrine and that also would be a false assumption. The fact is, the Rumsfeld Doctrine is still holding sway over our military’s international readiness posture. What’s funniest of ALL is that I never even heard any discussion of the Rumsfeld realignment of American bases and military might on these sites — FPM and elsewhere — until **I** brought it up in connection w/the events in Benghazi. You bring it up NOW in an attempt to sound like a brainiac, but, since you FOUGHT my remarks about the INHERENT RISKS of the Rumsfeld Doctrine several months ago over Benghazi, you’re not really in a position to lay claim to it in this argument. If you care to retract your previous stupidity over the

            Idiot, look in the mirror. You simply MUST have the last word. As if your words, as often as they are inaccurate, matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Idiot,

            It was a rebuke to Rumsfeld’s ideas. Rumsfeld should have been more flexible and prepared to pivot when conditions changed.

            Can you not read?

            “…it wasn’t a “rebuke.” meant to indict the Rumsfeld philosophy.”

            I didn’t say anything about intention. I mentioned the effect. It didn’t rebuke his approach entirely but rather his failure while serving under Bush #43 and rehabilitating somewhat the people that opposed his rigid planning before the war started.

            You can have the last word on this if you promise to read the 6-part article I gave you before you pontificate with your ignorance on economics.

          • Americana

            Listen, dummy, I guess you cannot read a calendar. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld wasn’t still the Sec. of Defense the day the surge was declared in Iraq so Rumsfeld HIMSELF WOULDN’T have questioned his overall GLOBAL strategy simply because of instability in Iraq NOR would Rumsfeld have been the Sec/Def (who needed) “to be FLEXIBLE AND PREPARED TO PIVOT WHEN CONDITIONS CHANGED”. That was left to subsequent Secretaries of Defense to face the issues w/the American contraction of its foreign military bases. Initially, it was Sec. of Def. Gates but later Sec’s/Def have continued to have to face the fallout from the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/books/04book.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

            http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116500/duty-memoirs-secretary-war-reviewed-max-boot

            From the above link:

            As a result he (SEC. DEF ROBERT GATES) was highly effective in his dealings with the legislative branch. In 2007, Gates worked assiduously and successfully to prevent Congress from prematurely pulling the plug on the surge in Iraq.

            It is a sign of how little Rumsfeld achieved that Gates noted a major problem at his very first meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 13, 2006, while Rumsfeld was still in charge for a few more days: “I was struck in the meeting by the service chiefs’ seeming detachment from the wars we were in and their focus on future contingencies and stress on the force. Not one uttered a single sentence on the need for us to win in Iraq. It was my first glimpse of one of the biggest challenges I would face throughout my time as secretary—getting those whose offices were in the Pentagon to give priority to the overseas battlefields.”
            __________________________________________________________________________

            The day you recognize a military strategy that’s rebuked because of its WORLDWIDE IMPLICATIONS vs its IMPLICATIONS IN ONE COUNTRY is the day you’ll apologize for your stupid comments about my bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine and the American military realignment from a year ago viz Benghazi. If you’ve forgotten, you were one of those who RIDICULED my bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine and the worldwide American strategic posture that continued w/only minor shifts under subsequent Secretaries of Defense after the Rumsfeld era. The issues w/our contraction continue to this day.

            Your attempts to ELEVATE YOURSELF and your thinking above those of others is, bar none, the most egregiously arrogant I’ve ever seen in an open debate forum. It’s too darn late for you to pretend to have had any awareness at all of how the Rumsfeld Doctrine has affected America’s worldwide defensive/offensive stance. Your bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine is too little, too late, and too wrong-way Corrigan for words.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 6 hours ago: “Listen, dummy, I guess you cannot read a calendar. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld wasn’t still the Sec. of Defense the day the surge was declared in Iraq so Rumsfeld HIMSELF WOULDN’T have questioned his overall GLOBAL strategy simply because of instability in Iraq NOR would Rumsfeld have been the Sec/Def (who needed) “to be FLEXIBLE AND PREPARED TO PIVOT WHEN CONDITIONS CHANGED”.”

            Cite me or bite me you stupid communist gaslighting beyotch.

          • Americana

            (objectivefactsmatter) “Partly true. What do you call the 2007 surge but an indirect rebuke of Rumsfeld’s original vision?” It’s pretty clear you don’t draw any distinction between the worldwide military stance Rumsfeld had left us in vs the position Rumsfeld had left us in there in Iraq as an insurgency boiled over and two Muslim sects went after each other. **They’re two very different scenarios that exist in isolation from one another whether you want to believe that or not.**

            Rumsfeld STILL DOESN’T QUESTION his doctrine of ultra high-tech, ultra Rapid Response Forces being the ideal solution for the American armed forces in the 21st century. ( I guess you haven’t read his autobiography?) As for Rumsfeld pivoting and being flexible about Iraq or about his Rumsfeld Doctrine internationally, his pivoting in Iraq consisted of saying we’d done enough and we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis. I think he realized what a mess he’d helped create by thinking the Iraqis could overcome their sectarian differences in the immediate post-war Iraq. His pivoting on the international Rumsfeld Doctrine is likely to never happen.

            http://www.amazon.com/Known-Unknown-Memoir-Donald-Rumsfeld/dp/159523084X

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, Rumsfeld is brilliant and not “wrong,” but he is myopic. If he’d been better at managing his human resources and accepting (and integrating) legitimate criticism, things could have gone better. I think Bush probably liked what he heard in part because Bush sort of became dependent on the delusional promises. Bush wanted to be a centrist and have magic results where we can have big wars that don’t cost that much and simultaneously stimulate the economy and pay the bills all in one election cycle. It led to his dependence on Rumsfeld being right and doubling down in spite of growing evidence that some of the dissenters had legitimate criticism.

            Both were rebuked by reality. That doesn’t mean everything that they did was wrong. It means they didn’t adjust and denied emerging evidence of the flaws in their planning and execution.

          • Americana

            Pres. Bush didn’t believe he was in for a cheap war in Iraq. What gave you that idea? Pres. Bush authorized an extremely EXPENSIVE and INTENSE bombing campaign in Iraq prior to the ground invasion in order to minimize the risks for American ground troops. There wasn’t ANYTHING that Mr. Bush planned on tactically that was meant to keep the Iraq War CHEAP and BRING IT IN UNDER BUDGET.

            Things have gone swimmingly for the Rumsfeld Doctrine up until relatively recently and anyway, even if we had all our previous U.S. bases scattered in the Middle East, our actual military posture in the Middle East might not be any different at this point in time viz the Islamic State. I’m sure we’d be in the same boat of trying to encourage the Muslim countries to meld together into a defensive cordon w/the U.S. as military backstop as we’re doing. The fact there were one or more unintended horrors like Benghazi doesn’t change the fact that the Rumsfeld Doctrine has saved the U.S. umpteen billions of dollars. The Rumsfeld Doctrine has been militarily successful for the most part as well as financially successful. The fact the Russians moved on Ukraine in order to take back the Crimea when it looked like Ukraine would fall for NATO overtures only means that there are some regional worries over the total scope of the Ukrainian situation. Regardless, the Ukraine situation is not directly attributable to the Rumsfeld Doctrine either even though it seems as if it could be. I’m fairly certain that Pres. Putin would still have made such an attack if Ukraine had joined NATO and then agreed to host NATO missile defense system on Ukrainian territory. Mr. Putin would have signaled that he had limited intentions in Ukraine and I’m sure we’ve sat back and watched it unfold. But as for the Russians making similar territorial grabs today above and beyond parts of Ukraine and the Crimea on the scale of those territorial grabs at the tail end of WW II, well, I don’t believe we have to worry. As far as I can tell, the Russian move into Ukraine is simply to increase its sacrificial BUFFER ZONE territory for NATO missiles as well as to tamp down Ukrainian enthusiasm for hosting NATO missiles on Ukrainian territory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What gave you that idea? Pres. Bush authorized an extremely EXPENSIVE and INTENSE bombing campaign in Iraq prior to the ground invasion in order to minimize the risks for American ground troops. ”

            You’re not much for nuance or economics. Spending a lot for a few years to end it quickly is not the same as planning on spending a lot indefinitely.

            It’s the same rationale people use when they buy very high quality paint to protect the exteriors of their homes or their cars. They’re not trying to be extravagant. They’re using economic models that factor quality and durability in to the equations. They might spend a lot of money that day in the expectation that they’re actually saving money.

            Which is not to say that Bush cared only about money either. I can almost predict what stupid “misunderstanding” you’re try next.

            nu·ance noun ˈnü-ˌän(t)s, ˈnyü-, -ˌäⁿs; nü-ˈ, nyü-ˈ
            : a very small difference in color, tone, meaning, etc.
            Full Definition of NUANCE
            1
            : a subtle distinction or variation
            2
            : a subtle quality : nicety
            3
            : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicateshadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

            Carrying on extended conversations with people like you ends up leading nowhere because you keep expanding (ranting) and mischaracterizing and claiming victory with your little straw man creation factory. Why would I care about your analysis? I don’t.

          • Americana

            You’re the one who perennially declares himself the victor in most discussions. I don’t “expand” the conversation unless the expansion seems to require it be included. There are logical underpinnings for expansion of discussions depending on what the subject is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for Rumsfeld pivoting and being flexible about Iraq or about his Rumsfeld Doctrine internationally, his pivoting in Iraq consisted of saying we’d done enough and we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis.”

            I think that’s an unhinged position to take all things considered. OTOH it’s possible I guess that if we had left abruptly that a lot of the killing would have happened but it would have died down more quickly. There are just too many factors to consider to think that speculation here is very valuable.

            I am convince though that had he been better at building consensus without letting go of the larger vision that we could have been more successful. I think there were lots of other factors that can’t be blamed on the administration either. I think a lot of the rallying around the flag my half the country was just deceptive posing.

            Anyway, these kinds of tangential discussions are only marginally valuable at this point. Americans are divided over which right is more important, protection of property rights, or this French notion of egalitarianism that you espouse.

          • Americana

            Why on earth would you think you could claim the Iraqi sectarian killing would have “died down more quickly” if we’d allowed the killing to progress following a U.S. withdrawal? It could just as easily allowed the rapid expansion of the ISISf Muslim ideologues in Iraq.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            In theory it’s possible. I did not say would. Are you stupid or just a chronic liar? Both it appears.

            There are lots of possibilities. I was trying to give Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt for that moment to understand his thinking.

          • Americana

            I’m asking a LEGITIMATE QUESTION as to how you arrive at such a ludicrous thought. (My QUESTION was: “Why on earth do you think you could claim the Iraqi sectarian killing “would have died down quicker” if we’d allowed the killing to progress following a U.S. withdrawal?”) I’m neither stupid nor a chronic liar because I posed the question to you. That sentence is neither “stupid” nor the language choice of a “chronic liar.” Your response is SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPLANATION justifying how you think such a process would work out relative to the Iraqi sects and political situation.

            You, however, don’t bother to formulate an answer. Instead, per usual, you DON’T give me an answer. Instead, you give EVERY SIGN, EACH AND EVERY POST that you’re willing to TWIST, DEFAME, ADULTERATE and otherwise MESS w/others’ writing to give the IMPRESSION that **what you’ve written** is **what they’ve written.** I’d say that’s TERMINAL MENDACITY on your part for about the 500th time but, then again, who’s counting those terminally mendacious incidents out of you? But that phrase of “terminal mendacity” ought to be retired from this web site since there’s so much of it ongoing here by people such as yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again you’re unable to follow even slightly nuanced statements. I’m very sorry for your ongoing problems. Good luck.

          • Americana

            This is the most concise description of the timing of the Iraq surge that accompanied the firing of Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld I could find:

            http://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/31/the-iraq-war-surge-myth-returns-2/

            From the above link:

            Thus, the myth grew that Bush’s “surge” had brought Iraqi violence under control and the United States to the brink of “victory.” Gen. David Petraeus, who took command of Iraq after Bush yanked Casey and Abizaid, was elevated into hero status as a military genius. Also, Defense Secretary Robert Gates received the encomium of “wise man” for implementing the “surge” after Bush fired Donald Rumsfeld in November 2006 for standing behind his field generals and suggesting a faster U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq.

          • Americana

            Well, isn’t this fascinating. A post of mine that informed objectivefactsmatter that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired and left office in 2006 before Sec. of Defense Robert Gates took office and implemented the troop surge in Iraq in 2007 has NEVER POSTED. It just poof… disappeared. Dandy. I’m off to recompile all the information in that post. If it disappears again… I’ll know that someone has taken the moderator duties into his own hands to spare someone the embarrassment of looking like an ignoramus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 5 hours ago: “Well, isn’t this fascinating. A post of mine that informed objectivefactsmatter that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired and left office in 2006 before Sec. of Defense Robert Gates took office and implemented the troop surge in Iraq in 2007 has NEVER POSTED. It just poof… disappeared. Dandy. I’m off to recompile all the information in that post. If it disappears again… I’ll know that someone has taken the moderator duties into his own hands to spare someone the embarrassment of looking like an ignoramus.”

            You are such a freaking dumbass. No quarter for you.

            Go ahead and include in your rants where I said that Rumsfeld was still around for the surge. Phucking idiot troll.

          • Americana

            (You wouldn’t be such a wienie if you weren’t wrong… Just FYI.) What I was telling you is that Rumsfeld wasn’t regretting his international doctrine of vast reductions in troops, numerous base closings, relocation of bases on the BASIS of Iraq’s continuing meltdown post-invasion. That’s where the TIMING of his resignation and the two DIFFERENT SEC/DEFs come into play. Rumsfeld considered that international trade off in the U.S. strategic posture to be well worth the gains in the higher tech weaponry the U.S. Armed Forces would then be able to afford to buy from the savings on the base closings, etc. As for Rumsfeld seeing what you see in the Iraq surge, I doubt he’d ever see eye to eye w/you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Moronic communist,

            So what. Stop trying to pretend that I wrote anything that anyone could legitimately blame me for getting confused about.

          • Americana

            You always claim that someone else is confused.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Evidence-based claims.

          • Americana

            Shall I list your most recent dozen claims of me suffering from confusion followed by my understanding of you attesting to my confusion? That would be enlightening.

          • Americana

            Ah, but Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was OUSTED in 2006 having failed to correctly assess the post-war situation in Iraq and, consequently, and not surprisingly, the U.S. troop surge occurred in 2007 under Sec. of Defense Robert Gates in an attempt to rectify the situation Sec. Rumsfeld’s strategies had created . So, not only would Sec. Rumsfeld not have been in a position to have “been more flexible and prepared to pivot when conditions changed,” but he still, to this day, defends his worldwide realignment of the American military:

            http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116500/duty-memoirs-secretary-war-reviewed-max-boot

            From the link:

            As a result he was highly effective in his dealings with the legislative branch. In 2007, Gates worked assiduously and successfully to prevent Congress from prematurely pulling the plug on the surge in Iraq. Later he managed to prevent Congress from overriding his decisions to cancel weapons systems such as the F-22, the airborne laser, and the Army’s Future Combat System family of armored vehicles. I would guess that Gates’s contempt for Congress would come as news to most members who dealt with him—a sign of how, like a wily intelligence officer, he was effectively able to mask his true self to play a role that would enable him to accomplish his objective. This may in fact be a necessity for any successful political leader, whether appointed or elected.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, but Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was OUSTED in 2006 having failed to correctly assess the post-war situation in Iraq and, consequently, and not surprisingly, the U.S. troop surge occurred in 2007 under Sec. of Defense Robert Gates in an attempt to rectify the situation Sec. Rumsfeld’s strategies had created .”

            That is totally consistent with what I said.

          • Americana

            Naturally, you’ve totally misunderstood the import of my saying that the 2007 surge in Iraq was to rectify the situation in IRAQ that Sec. Rumsfeld’s Iraq strategy had created. The Iraq reinforcements had nothing to do w/the strategic deployments around the rest of the world as they reflected the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I understand your point. My point is that our nation has been divided and even within any given administrations many controversies live on in spite of growing evidence.

            My very simple point is that Rumsfeld, in spite of and probably at least in part because of his brilliance, shut others out and stuck to his guns. And then when the surge was relatively successful it proved to my satisfaction that had he been a lot more flexible and responsive to events as they happened that we as a nation would have been more successful in Iraq. In in theory, lessons learned COULD BE applied globally.

            The thing is that half the nation does not want us to be successful on the battlefield. I suspect that although you’ll claim otherwise that you’re one of them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And by the way, this pressure to support welfare programs and cut military is part of the same problem. You’re part of the problem. Without communists like you it would be much easier to adjust to realities on the ground without worrying as much about budgets because of this insane expectation that social spending (handouts or “stimulus” to do nothing) should exceed military spending!

            That’s insane! The government should be focused on its job, not pandering.

          • Americana

            Ah, yet another post about the two Secretaries of Defense whose tenures you’ve confused. Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld was not in charge when the U.S. troop surge occurred in Iraq. Rumsfeld had been ousted in 2006 for having failed to correctly assess how to manage the post-war Iraq in the aftermath of the American victory. Rumsfeld was replaced by Sec. of Defense Robert Gates who was the man who officially sponsored the 2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq. There’s a good article in the New Republic but since that may be what’s causing this post to be deleted, I’ll leave you to go dig it up.

            But I’ll post just a small quote from Sec. of Defense Gates because his attitude toward Congressional members’ typical questioning of professionals like himself is so resonant of your tactical debate attack mode, all vilification and no sensibilities and no intellect:

            Gates’s indictment of Congress is severe. “I was constantly amazed and infuriated at the hypocrisy of those who most stridently attacked the Defense Department for being inefficient and wasteful but would fight tooth and nail to prevent any reduction in defense activities in their home state or district no matter how inefficient or wasteful.” Moreover, “I was exceptionally offended by the constant adversarial, inquisition-like treatment of executive branch officials by too many members of Congress across the political spectrum—a kangaroo-court environment in hearings, especially when the press and television cameras were present.” Nor does Gates limit himself to generic attacks on Congress as an institution: he also offers barbs at individuals with whom he tangled. He accuses Nancy Pelosi of putting “partisan politics” above “fact and reality—not to mention the national interest” in her opposition to the Iraq surge. He makes fun of Harry Reid for contacting him “to urge that Defense invest in research on irritable bowel syndrome,” adding, “With two ongoing wars and all our budget and other issues, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.”

          • Americana

            Simply throwing out the slur “idiot” doesn’t give you the win. Just FYI. You seem to be doing this every other post lately in a vain attempt to hide your own posts failings. It won’t work.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually what it does is signal to the sane people that you have nothing interesting to reply to.

            OK idiot?

          • Americana

            There ya go, thinking you’ve got the power. Ooops, better capitalize that word to give you some REAL POWER! Enjoy your power while it lasts… Pfffffftt… Oh no, you’re all out of hot air.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think that most people reading do appreciate the signals.

            Do go with denial though. It’s not rare these days. How many readers don’t think you’re an idiotic bluffer regurgitating talking points from leftist web sites? And it’s not like you can show I’m wrong.

            But the ultimate evidence is how poorly you track the conversations here. That’s what really counts and that’s why you’re just about useless.

          • Americana

            I never regurgitate talking points. I write out my own thinking. It serves your purposes to claim that I’m a mindless political automaton but since you’re serving the IDENTICAL PURPOSE of SPEWING MINDLESS RANTS w/ENDLESS REPETITION OF KEY PHRASES/THOUGHTS, I’d think you wouldn’t want to be the one to start throwing the philosophical stones. People in glass houses and all….

          • Americana

            You’ve never shown you’re (factually) right. You’ve only demonstrated just how far right you are and how far you’ll go to misrepresent someone else’s writing by re-writing it according to your biased themes. Tragically though, you’re a bad writer and rather than write factually and well, you CONSTANTLY slip into these slur-fests where you spend all your time spamming me w/labels rather than ACTUALLY WRITING OUT FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS of events.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The simple fact is that you’re a bullshitter. Stop bullshitting if you want to have conversations.

            I’m saving people time by pointing that out. They still have the option of looking on their own. Stop crying. Stop bullshitting.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m not crying. I’ll still be here spitting out honest opinions that are roundly ridiculed by such as you only to have them reappear under others’ bylines (including yours) when you wish to pretend that those thoughts of mine have always been part of your understanding of a subject.

            If I’m a bullshitter, why is it you’re suddenly borrowing my ideas about the Rumsfeld Doctrine (the military realignment under Donald Rumsfeld that persists to this day) that is putting our diplomats at risk? You certainly weren’t of that opinion last year. What, my ideas are suddenly transformed and become not bullshit when they’re co-opted by you? (There are more nefarious explanations for you to suddenly have started voicing that concept of mine about the Rumsfeld Doctrine but I’ll wait to see if there’s more clarification of those possible explanations over this next Benghazi brawl session as yet another “hearing” is called.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll still be here spitting out honest opinions …”

            OK, but you’re >honestly< deluded and annoying. You wanted to "wrestle with the alligators" or something like that and then you whine like a baby when you lose your legs.

            It's one thing to offer an alternative opinion. That's a good thing. But when you try to bullshit and dispute corrections you're going to get slapped.

            And you have a LOT of catching up to do if you're going for the 2014 Black Knight award. It's possible because you offer a lot of BS each day but don't get disappointed if someone else gets the nod for a sustained year-long effort. Then again if you combine all of your accounts used on FPM you might approach the top 3.

            Good luck with your mission.

          • Americana

            See? Nothing but slurs and libel. I don’t mind wrestling w/alligators. I mind wrestling w/LYING ALLIGATORS who can’t dispute posts without REWRITING THEM to suit the alligator’s narrative. Nature might be red in tooth and claw, but Nature has nothin’ on alligators and their need to spew partisan propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re accusations are just more bullcrap.

          • Americana

            Would you PLEEEEEEEZZ figure out the grammatical difference between YOUR vs YOU’RE? (Hint, one is a possessive and one is a verb.)

            The day I become my accusations is the day I dematerialize over fighting the bullcr*p spewed by objectivefactsmatter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dummy,

            Everyone knows that you’re is a contraction of you are. People some times type quickly and don’t fix it before posting. OK OCD victim?

            “The day I become my accusations is the day I dematerialize over fighting the bullcr*p spewed by objectivefactsmatter.”

            Just reflect a little bit more.

          • Americana

            Nah. You wouldn’t make the same mistake time after time after time if you didn’t actually have a problem w/the two. You and Pete both have the identical problems w/grammar. After reading a few hundred such mistakes in your posts, I can’t bear to see it any longer. I’m also growing less tolerant of your irrational explanations for how things are interconnected. I don’t need to reflect on your timetable. The fact you only catch up to my reflections a year after the fact is something on which you should reflect.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You really are an idiot if you think people don’t know the difference between your and you are.

            YOU ARE an IDIOT. You might need more than Zoloft if you must attack sloppy typing in order to feel superior. You’re likely need ongoing talk therapy.

            Good luck.

            “The fact you only catch up to my reflections a year after the fact is something on which you should reflect.”

            Nobody pays attention to your rants. You’re completely unhinged. Get help. Catch up with what? Are you crazy? Next you’ll tell me why (by the way, you’ll is a contraction of you and will) people really drive cars or something like that.

            Freaking insane communist. See, Gruber was right, but he wasn’t talking about me. He was talking about morons like you.

          • Americana

            I’m not feeling superior to you because of your “sloppy typing” I’m worried about the U.S. when there are so many self-important individuals like yourself who write sentences like “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” when they’re referring to the U.S. President making the military decisions about international deployments as if the POTUS is the one to make those decisions on his lonesome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m worried about the U.S. when there are so many self-important individuals like yourself who write sentences like “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” when they’re referring to the U.S. President making the military decisions about international deployments as if the POTUS is the one to make those decisions on his lonesome.”

            Dumbass,

            We don’t know what choices he made. I don’t want to hear bullshit like nobody was home to scramble a jet – anywhere – from land or from sea – AND we could not arm drones and so forth. Because that sounds like an INFLEXIBLE military. IOW, wrong choices were made.

            See? So there are legitimate questions. But you’re such an uncritical homer that you think because you can follow apologist talking points that you’re superior to people that continue to question a proven liar.

          • Americana

            Sure, there are legitimate questions. Those legitimate questions HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. The U.S. military’s strategic posture was found wanting. It’s not a big secret what went wrong in Benghazi. The U.S. military COULD HAVE SCRAMBLED jets but they wouldn’t have gotten to Benghazi in time. Looking at Benghazi in hindsight is what has enabled all these conspiracy theories to be hatched and continue to proliferate. But there simply was not enough time for the Benghazi rescue mission to come from the Rapid Response Forces in the region. Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were DEAD WITHIN TWO HOURS of the attack commencing on the consular compound.

            So, Pres. Obama is a “proven liar”. Fill me in as to what lies he’s told that make you believe that all these military higher ups would lie for him. Why would all these lies and liars echo each other so perfectly? The timeline is incontrovertible even if it makes us look bad. (Remember, you can’t claim that the U.S. military hates Pres. Obama in one post and then claim in another post that they’re lying to cover up for the POTUS. It’s gotta be one or the other for the sake of credibility.) But, dumbazz, remember that you claim that “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” and, therefore, it must follow that the U.S. military can’t be caught flat-footed at any point in time.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sure, there are legitimate questions. Those legitimate questions HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.”

            You’re satisfied and I’m not. How hard is that to understand?

            “The U.S. military’s strategic posture was found wanting. It’s not a big secret what went wrong in Benghazi. The U.S. military COULD HAVE SCRAMBLED jets but they wouldn’t have gotten to Benghazi in time.”

            Why? In time for what? Again, you’re satisfied and I’m not. Why would it take 8 hours to prepare a flight of F16s to take off from Aviano? Other coverage somewhere else? Where? Are any jets on any kind of standby anywhere in the region?

            “Looking at Benghazi in hindsight is what has enabled all these conspiracy theories to be hatched and continue to proliferate.”

            I don’t care what conspiracies others suggest. People can blame Elvis and I will still want better answers.

            “But there simply was not enough time for the Benghazi rescue mission to come from the Rapid Response Forces in the region.”

            It might have played out differently if we had some response from the air other than an unarmed drone.

            “Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were DEAD WITHIN TWO HOURS of the attack commencing on the consular compound.”

            I’m not claiming that there is certainly a way we could have avoided casualties. I’m saying that our response was from my perspective more about global social justice than protecting American interests. And this was at a time when 0′Bama was pushing this idea that there were only a few jihadis in Libya and “AQ is on the run” if I recall correctly. What I see and hear from the guy is “local crime problem.”

            “So, Pres. Obama is a “proven liar”. Fill me in as to what lies he’s told that make you believe that all these military higher ups would lie for him.”

            We have some explanations about what happened but not why we were so unprepared. Why? What is this strategy for constantly underestimating jihadis? Seems consistent with his entire approach with the MB and others. Including Iran. He doesn’t have to order anyone to lie. He orders them to shut up and let the administration narratives fill in the blanks. That’s what they all do.

            “The timeline is incontrovertible even if it makes us look bad.”

            The timeline doesn’t provide all of the answers.

            “(Remember, you can’t claim that the U.S. military hates Pres. Obama in one post and then claim in another post that they’re lying to cover up for the POTUS. It’s gotta be one or the other for the sake of credibility.)”

            First, I don’t’ remember saying that the US military hates him. I do know a lot of service members that do. And I see that he was able to promote quite a few players and I assume he knows how to recruit and promote loyal soldiers. And I don’t need to show how anyone in the military lied. I told you what I question. I question the top leadership in preparation, actual performance and communicating with the public after the events.

            “But, dumbazz, remember that you claim that “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” and, therefore, it must follow that the U.S. military can’t be caught flat-footed at any point in time.”

            No moron, you simply can’t claim that covering Libya from Aviano or from a carrier was that big of a deal. One or the other if not both and you can’t use armed drones. See, what you’re describing is an inflexible military. It should not take 8 hours to prepare a flight of F16s in Aviano if that’s the fastest option to get down to Libya. The military is apparently more flexible than you seem to imagine.

            Being caught flatfooted would be scrambling the jets and getting there late. We didn’t even scramble the jets. Can you see the difference?

          • Americana

            Well, your above post again fails to provide units or locations that could have delivered GROUND TROOPS to Benghazi. But we’re all aware your post is an attempt to pretend that your sentence “The U.S. military is very flexible” — (OFM) was in reference to defensive tactical possibilities in Benghazi rather than your sentence’s ORIGINAL CLAIM which is that the U.S. military could rapidly change its WORLDWIDE DEFENSE POSTURE if it WISHED TO DO DO and the POTUS INSISTED the U.S. military do so. That sentence of yours was in reference to the Rumsfeld Doctrine and that POTUSes after Pres. Bush should have foreseen the risks of the Rumsfeld Doctrine and have SCALED UP the U.S. military posture in the region. Well, Pres. Obama did so after the fact when the decision was made to increase the total number of Rapid Response Forces placed on U.S. Navy vessels hosting Marine Expeditionary Forces as well as to place a new RRForce at Sigonella Air Base in Italy.

            Obviously, if none of the locations where we’ve got troops could make that flight time to Benghazi then the SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED each and every inquiry — Benghazi was indefensible from the outside unless we had changed our defense posture PRIOR to the assault on Benghazi. Scrambling jets just to make a futile gesture isn’t a flat-footed strategic coup. That’d be a coup de grace in my book.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Futile gesture.

            And you’re a deranged communist spammer.

            “That’d be a coup de grace in my book.”

            Your book is…

          • Americana

            You’re the deranged spammer who can only throw spamalot commentary into threads to gum up the works. If you had a definitive response about American military response capabilities that would have saved the day in Benghazi, you would have produced such a response by now. Yet, here you are in your latest posts returning to the F-16 scenario from a year ago w/the claim that F-16s would have scared the terrorists away from the American consular compound even though all the terrorists likely would have done is to move into the surrounding buildings and fired their mortars and other munitions from there. But, wait a minute, you MUST BE IGNORING THE FACT the jihadi terrorists were already inside the consular compound by the time an F-16 would have arrived… Still want close-contact bombing and strafing of an American compound w/a close quarters ground assault going on????

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you had a definitive response about American military response capabilities that would have saved the day in Benghazi, you would have produced such a response by now.”

            You’re creating idiotic false dichotomies. I don’t have to “prove” what would have “saved the day.” I’m showing how our choices are seen by our enemies and allies around the world. Choices. Not just bad luck. I’m focusing on our choices.

          • Americana

            Those are not false dichotomies. You’re focusing in the case of Benghazi on PAST CHOICES. If Benghazi was SALVAGEABLE in terms of the disposition of forces as they EXISTED DURING THE BENGHAZI EVENT (which is what you’ve claimed), I want to know what the Hail Mary pass consisted of for military units and it had better stand up to scrutiny.

            Using F-16s? They’re not gonna fly as the Hail Mary pass even if the Deputy Director of the Benghazi mission Gregory Hicks asked for them. Gen. Martin Dempsey said they were the wrong tool for the job. He’s got more military chops than Gregory Hicks does.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            F16s are not the first tool of choice for ground support in urban environment but they’re good in a pinch. In fact they’re excellent even though we have a lot of better choices in theory. They’re just not deployed and ready to scramble over those distances.

            So what? F16s are not A10s or Harriers.

            Therefore just let the police handle it. But we have to let a few guys rush in or the conservatives will claim we don’t defend US interests. What should we do? Well, let’s just not lose our cool here…

          • Americana

            Enough said:

            Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12,Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • Americana

            (OFM) “F16s are not the first tool of choice for ground support in urban environment but they’re good in a pinch. In fact they’re excellent even though we have a lot of better choices in theory.”

            Do you really think any of the military folks are going to take the above seriously? I can’t even begin to rebut the above, I’m laughing too hard at your presumption and assumptions. In fact, I’ll leave this to hieronymous to analyze.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Freak. I’m not talking to “military folks.” I’m pointing out simple truths. Are you saying that it’s wrong or that you want to deflect by trying to create fake controversies?

            Explain specifically why the F16 is inferior for close air support relative to the others I mentioned. What are the issues, brainiac? Then we’ll discuss why it’s “LOL” to use the F16s instead.

            Let’s here it. I’m calling your bluff.

          • Americana

            F-16s have limited ability to reduce their speed. Fighter jets aren’t like attack helicopters. That inability to significantly reduce their speed in order to better select and target in an urban firefight is why they’re not the “tool of choice” for urban warfare. They’re great for bombing buildings and tank formations and strafing runs when you know you’re not going to be taking out your own personnel or your own buildings. But in the case of Benghazi, where you had an urban environment w/CIA personnel on the ground and no way to tell those CIA guys to clear the area? The combat scenario in Benghazi didn’t call for using the bombs on the F-16 or for using its rockets or its machine guns in a highly fluid firefight.

            http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament.html

            AGM-65 Maverick
            Air-to-ground missileAGM-84 Harpoon
            Anti-ship missileAIM-120 AMRAAM
            Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air MissileAIM-7 Sparrow
            Medium Range Air-to-Air MissileAIM-9 Sidewinder
            Short Range Air-to-Air MissileAN/AAQ-13 & AN/AAQ-14 LANTIRN
            Navigation & Targeting PodGBU-31 and GBU-38 JDAM
            Joint Direct Attack MunitionM61 A1 Vulcan
            20mm gatling gun systemOther Armament
            US Tri-Service Designation System Electronic Equipment
            US Tri-Service Designation System Guided Missiles

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually F16s are optimized for air superiority and have been adapted for attack missions as well. Notice the flexibility. The F16 was not designed for attack role. But it has been adapted because this original optimization does not prevent it from doing other things.

            The attack role is a step away from air superiority and ground support a further step. Nonetheless, thinking that these design intentions and optimizations prevent a pilot from using an F16 for strafing runs or “show of force” is what a bean counter or an equivocator would argue.

            I’m not interested in stupidity or equivocation. That’s already been published in sufficient quantities. You defending the bean counters and equivocators just exposes your worldview – especially when coupled with everything else that you’ve said.

            “The combat scenario in Benghazi didn’t call for using the bombs on the F-16 or for using its rockets or its machine guns in a highly fluid firefight.”

            Like I said, launching a ground support jet from a carrier would have been ideal. The F16 is not a laughable choice if it’s your last choice. But according to you it wasn’t even available.

            It’s really great that you’ve practiced protecting bean counter narratives.

          • Americana

            hieronymous wrote an excellent rebuttal but I’ll add a couple of things. You’re making an assertion about the potential for a ground-support jet like the A-10 to have served a real purpose in Benghazi, but there’s really not all that much difference between what an F=16 and an A-10 would have been able to do in that urban situation. The very same obstacles that would have rendered the F-16s useless would also have rendered the A-10s useless though perhaps slightly less so. Neither aircraft have the strategic flexibility that was needed in Benghazi. Close-air support fighters like the A-10 Warthog need to have someone targeting their enemy for them or CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE ENEMY FORMATIONS that can be attacked at will by the A-10 pilot without any direction from his own forces. We needed attack helicopters. F-16s roaring by overhead and executing a shoot ‘em up scenario isn’t what would have worked to eliminate the jihadist forces. If F-16s are so great at taking out jihadis, then why is it the battle in Kobani has been going on for so long? it’s really great that you’re trying your darndest to shove this F-16 narrative down everyone’s throats but it’s about as plausible as your assertion that the entire general staff is covering for the Obama administration.

            http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/a-10-close-air-support-wonder-weapon-or-boneyard-bound/

            He listed some very specific conditions where the A-10 and its ordnance are awfully useful:

            When “flying cover over outposts where attack helicopters can’t get (high altitude areas [e.g.] above 10,000 feet in the mountainous areas of Eastern Afghanistan for instance) and other USAF aircraft cannot get down/under the weather or fly in tight spaces (F-16, et al) or are too limited in numbers (AC-130).”

            When “there is little to no air-to-air/IADs [integrated air defense system] threat and its use eases the demand for artillery and ground logistics requirements to support that artillery (cannon or rocket)[:] think of the support provided by Warthog pilots during the march to Baghdad in 2003); and the 30mm [gun], which is unique and intimidating to those on the receiving end, but not as precise as the gun on the AH-64 or the AC-130.”

            He also made the crucial point, unaddressed by most in the Air Force, that the A-10 also serves as flying artillery, which is very useful in some situations. “CAS,” he writes, “is a complement to artillery and other indirect and air to surface fire support.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He also made the crucial point, unaddressed by most in the Air Force, that the A-10 also serves as flying artillery, which is very useful in some situations. “CAS,” he writes, “is a complement to artillery and other indirect and air to surface fire support.””

            Wow. You’re expertise is so impressive.

          • Americana

            Of course you’re interested in stupidity and equivocation or you wouldn’t resuscitate dead discussion points like how using F-16s as a successful show of force that would have made the jihadists turn tail and run in Benghazi. You cease trying to revive dead arguments and maybe I’ll begin to credit you w/being above stupidity and equivocation. As things stand, you represent the ultimate in stupidity and equivocation and, worse yet, you enhance the overall impression of hubris w/your vanity and preening. Telling people like me to “shut up and listen (to you all) because you’re my betters” isn’t conducive to discussion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 12 minutes ago: “Of course you’re interested in stupidity and equivocation or you wouldn’t resuscitate dead discussion points like how using F-16s as a successful show of force that would have made the jihadists turn tail and run in Benghazi”

            Dumbass,

            You can’t argue that it would not have helped.

            “As things stand, you represent the ultimate in stupidity and equivocation and, worse yet, you enhance the overall impression of hubris w/your vanity and preening. Telling people like me to “shut up and listen (to you all) because you’re my betters” isn’t conducive to discussion.”

            Retarded communists don’t like what I say. Oh nos.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “You can’t argue that it would not have helped.” Oh, and why not? Lots and lots of other people ARE ARGUING that F-16s wouldn’t have helped in Benghazi

            If I were a “retarded communist”, somehow I doubt I would have instantly poked the very obvious hole in your whole tanker refueling inbound F-16s heading toward Benghazi… But there you have it, a “retarded communist” is smarter than your average brainiac might-makes-right right winger. Oh, no, say it ain’t so, objectivefactsmatter.

            Really, it’s soooooo funny that you’ve chosen that BB handle when you freak out each and every time your **facts** just don’t pan out the way you’d planned.

            If objective facts truly mattered to you, you’d accept the nature of some objective facts.

          • Americana

            Of course you’re talking to “military folks” when you’re writing about Benghazi. If you were “pointing out simple truths” you’d recognize the simple truths with which you’ve already been presented by several different reputable military figures. Look at how interested and aware hieronymous is about all the ins and outs of Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Of course you’re talking to “military folks” when you’re writing about Benghazi. If you were “pointing out simple truths” you’d recognize the simple truths with which you’ve already been presented by several different reputable military figures.”

            Again, the people you quote are not free to express simple truths. They are bound by various official and unofficial obligations and biases that are in conflict with revealing the full truth to the public. How stupid are you to not understand this simple truth?

          • Americana

            Their oaths and official obligations don’t preclude giving pretty honest answers about what could and couldn’t be done in Benghazi. In reality, they would have served their various armed services best if they’d stated exactly what went wrong in Benghazi and suggested measures to take to RECTIFY THE SITUATION so it could hopefully never happen again. As far as I understand it, that’s what has happened w/the addition of Rapid Reaction Forces to every U.S. warship that hosts a Marine Expeditionary Force as well as the stationing of a new Rapid Response Force at Sigonella Air Base in Italy. How stupid are you that you’d deny every simple truth that was ever presented to you?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The U.S. military COULD HAVE SCRAMBLED jets but they wouldn’t have gotten to Benghazi in time. ”

            Americana 20 minutes ago: “Lordy, but this is yet another of your long line of great one-liners: (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.””

            F16s could have arrived in ~2 hours. Handley figured closer to 3.

            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/2013/colonel-phil-handley/betrayal-in-benghazi/

            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.

          • Americana

            F-16s? General Ham said that “F-16s were the wrong tool for the job” in Benghazi. So you’re back to your old rant about using F-16s… Let’s see what’s wrong w/that. F-16s don’t deliver GROUND TROOPS to a firefight.

            F-16s can BOMB and STRAFE and ZIP OVERHEAD at such high speed that tactically, they don’t have a CLUE what they’re doing until after their attack video is analyzed or they’re informed by military on the ground. As for F-16s being capable of “scaring the insurgents” because they’re “roaring overhead at 200 feet and 550 knots” there is enough military experience among most insurgents now to recognize that F-16s doing a fly-by can’t do what needed to be done in a situation like Benghazi. What about the fact this was an inner city firefight and that the insurgents had 360º worth of buildings in which to hide themselves and still fire on the consular compound? Without BOMBS whole city blocks and without multiple STRAFING RUNS that killed CIA agents on the ground, the Benghazi assault would have continued. You make it sound like a show of force is all that’s needed nowadays and, voila, military success. What a kook. This has been DISMISSED AS A TACTICAL POSSIBILITY by everyone in the military who’s ever testified.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This has been DISMISSED AS A TACTICAL POSSIBILITY by everyone in the military who’s ever testified.”

            All they did was go on record saying it would take 8 hours to launch them. So shut up. Freaking communist lunatic.

          • Americana

            Ah, no, that is NOT all that was said about the F-16s and either you’re ignorant of that testimony or you’re feigning ignorance of that testimony. Here it is so you can refresh your memory of just how stupid the F-16 recommendation was considered:

            http://www.cfr.org/libya/senate-testimonies-secretary-defense-panetta-joint-chief-staff-general-dempsey-attack-us-facilities-benghazi-february-2013/p29939

            From the above link:

            Some have asked why other types of armed aircraft were not dispatched to Benghazi. The reason is because armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not in the vicinity of Libya and because of the distance, would have taken at least 9 to 12 hours if not more to deploy. This was, pure and simple, a problem of distance and time.

            From another site, the opinion of Sec. of Defense Robert Gates:

            Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12,Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Anti-American Dumbass,

            I’m focusing on the F16s. You want to quibble and quote someone else. And you already heard contrary testimony. Are you calling the pilot, Phil Handley, a liar?

            http://goefoundation.Org/index.php/eagles/biographies/h/handley-phil-hands/

            And again, if there was something in Aviano that prevented them from responding to calls as Phil suggests they should have, they could have and should have made adjustments elsewhere. But certain factions don’t want our military to use force in the way I’d like to. Certain factions think that AQ is “on the run” and so forth. This administration has a different strategy and he’s not explaining his “strength through weakness” strategy to the public.

            Even if it’s true that in the event that nobody was prepared to respond, it’s still unresolved as to why. There are still explanations that the public demands. So F off.

            This is a constitutional republic. The Constitution has more implications than your reading of the “happiness” clause.

            Stop the communist spamming.

          • Americana

            Pilot Phil Handley said F-16s could have gotten there in “2 to 6 hours”. But considering the first deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith occurred within TWO HOURS of the assault on the Benghazi consular complex, whatever Handley has to say about the use of F-16s as a deterrence is pretty darn silly. The attack would ALREADY HAVE PROGRESSED TO THE POINT OF BEING CONCLUDED by the time those F-16s arrived on scene.

            Somehow I doubt Sec. of Defense Robert Gates has any deference about using appropriate American force if it would have gotten the job done:

            Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12,Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/2013/colonel-phil-handley/betrayal-in-benghazi/

            Excerpt:

            “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.”

          • Americana

            The jets were NOT fueled and armed and on the line. Readiness is NOT JUST FLIGHT TIME from a particular airfield.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana an hour ago: “The jets were NOT fueled and armed and on the line. Readiness is NOT JUST FLIGHT TIME from a particular airfield.”

            His scenario did not require jets on standby with pilots buckled in. Nor did it require jets fueled. Did you read the article? Why are you still trying to create straw men?

            He allowed for installation of drop tanks and topping up fuel.

          • Americana

            That is NOT what has been stated by other air force sources. When he says the F-16s could have reached Benghazi in X-amount of time, he’s talking about planes that were fueled, armed and pilots have been prepped, basically F-16s that were ready to be instantly dispatched on a mission. The fact he mentions drop tanks and having tankers topping them up ONLY COMPLICATES the issue because THOSE REFUELING TANKER PLANES WOULD ALSO HAVE TO HAVE BEEN PREPPED FOR THEIR MISSION of topping up the tanks of the F-16s. (Gah, what is w/you and your impossibly DAFT and BRAINLESS knee-jerk acceptance of every cockamamie conspiracy idiocy that some kook can cook up?) What, we should believe this one guy because he’s a retired pilot and ignore all these other active-duty service guys who’ve said there were NO PLANES FUELED, ARMED and ON THE FLIGHT LINE w/pilots PREPPED and READY TO GO?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            He gave the details. Quote him and reply to his comments. Stop making crap up.

            “The fact he mentions drop tanks and having tankers topping them up ONLY COMPLICATES the issue because THOSE REFUELING TANKER PLANES WOULD ALSO HAVE TO HAVE BEEN PREPPED FOR THEIR MISSION of topping up the tanks of the F-16s.”

            I don’t care what bullshitters say. I’m not satisfied with the accounting and I don’t care that you are. I don’t care.

            “What, we should believe this one guy because he’s a retired pilot and ignore all these other active-duty service guys who’ve said there were NO PLANES FUELED, ARMED and ON THE FLIGHT LINE w/pilots PREPPED and READY TO GO?”

            You’re missing the point. I want enough details so that we can then ask why our preparedness was so poor. And if it really takes 8 hours to get an F16 prepared to scramble from Aviano I want to know why. I’m getting tired of repeating myself to spammers. It’s not enough to just say we weren’t ready – oh well. It’s not enough. Can you get that through your thick and clearly mentally ill head?

            I’m seriously thinking that you should have your account blocked here. And then if you have something valuable to add you can ask someone else to pass it along.

          • Americana

            Oh, so you didn’t know that tankers aren’t CONSTANTLY AIRBORNE the way they were in the days of the B-52 bombers during the Cold War and that topping up the tanks of these F-16s wouldn’t have been possible unless there had been advance planning for having them up there? I’m not “missing the point” at all… I’m calling you to task to FULLY ANALYZE just how idiotic some of those sources are that you’ve cited. ANY AIR FORCE PILOT would have known that tankers would need to be prepped and dispatched to top off the tanks of F-16s in advance of the F-16s taking off on their mission.

            I’m so glad that “you’re seriously thinking that I should have my account blocked here”. Every time I demonstrate any creditable thinking that takes issue w/what you’ve written, you call me a threat to the free world. You don’t realize that if I bring up flaws in your thinking or your posts or tactical concepts that you’ve posted here that those are GENUINE FLAWS. If you seriously want to fix things, you don’t deny that even you or those you’ve cited can be wrong on the issues.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m so glad that “you’re seriously thinking that I should have my account blocked here”. Every time I demonstrate any creditable thinking that takes issue w/what you’ve written, you call me a threat to the free world. ”

            No, you’re just a time-wasting spammer.

            Credible thinking. In your world.

            So join others in your world rather than trying so hard to ram your worldview down the throats of others as if their views are not valid. And this is just the kind of thinking that communists get caught up in so it’s totally relevant to point out your thinking regarding the “happiness” clause and so forth. And the fact that you can’t read, distill and summarize accurately what others say just puts the proverbial cherry on top.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, so you didn’t know…”

            Just shut up already. Psycho.

          • Americana

            No, it’s not a reflection of my psychology. That’s a simple fact that tankers would already have to be airborne and able to accomplish the task that is required for the mission you outlined.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, it’s not a reflection of my psychology.”

            Actually it is. When someone continually makes crap up like you do in spite of getting slapped down time after time after time it’s then time to look at what kind of problems this subject is having with their thought processes.

            “That’s a simple fact that tankers would already have to be airborne and able to accomplish the task that is required for the mission you outlined.”

            That would have been the ideal. Nobody actually denied that. If you want to keep calling Handley and others stupid, go right ahead. But here it’s looking a lot like a psychotic spammer can’t gain control of her impulses.

          • Americana

            Listen, kiddo, you haven’t successfully “slapped me down time after time” and you’ve never defended your assertion that “I make up crap”. Those are delusions you can pretend are true but if we resume the previous Benghazi discussion, you’ll be right back on the ground w/my remarks being greatly amplified by what hieronymous has to say on the subject. It’s obvious he’s got an excellent command of the subject and he writes circles around most of the spurious tactical scenarios you’ve been trying to sell on Benghazi. If you can’t write a solid rebuttal of my lightly fleshed-out posts then you sure can’t hack writing a successful rebuttal of hieronymous’ posts. So, again, don’t award yourself points and give yourself trophies when you haven’t achieved any knockouts. Everyone knows this is simply a tactical gambit to make it look like you “won.” Considering you abandon the field and switch to another subject whenever the pressure really is applied like it’s being applied on Benghazi, and, suddenly, you find yourself MESMERIZED by another subject. Well, you might fool some folks but you don’t fool the folks who are active participants in the conversation. You might get some fly bys who think you’re the “winner” because you talk big and you talk tough, but for those who read your remarks, you out yourself too frequently for that impression to be long-lasting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Listen, kiddo, you haven’t successfully “slapped me down time after time” and you’ve never defended your assertion that “I make up crap”. ”

            Alrighty then. I’ll highlight the relevant passage from now on. You make up a lot of crap about my alleged lack of appreciation for the new blood testing technology and the company that developed it. You riff a lot on the basic fallacy that I referred to her or it as fascist. My simple point was that if it’s free market capitalism then it’s an example that contradicts this idea that we need government interventions to drive progress. If she does seek “help” from the government that would make her dependent on fascist economic models.

            IOW, citing her did not help your case. I’m sorry if I confused you somehow. Your entire approach is just dumb. No offense.

            And as far as quoting stats for military jets or whatever, make sure it actually addresses what we’re talking about because when it doesn’t it looks to me like you’re trying to establish your bona fides in a mendacious manner. You’re answering questions that were not asked.

          • Americana

            I’ve never, ever written that we need government intervention to drive progress. I’ve written that sometimes government intervention is appropriate and, other times, it’s not. You never “confuse me,” but the fact that you like to pretend that you do in an effort to boost your intellectual superiority over me in the eyes of fellow readers is very telling. Instead of spending all that effort, writing out mendacious lines like that, why not simply provide FACT-RICH posts that make your case? That would carry a lot more weight than your CONSTANT CHANTS of slurs that basically call me a ‘Commie beotch’ and ‘Socialista sicko’. As for my approach being dumb, I wish I could say that your propaganda blitz of the same tired old slurs has real impact and isn’t DUMB. But it is, frankly, DUMB. You look like you’ve got nothing to say but claim that me/someone/anyone/everyone is always lying, is always a liar and blah blah… Patently clear that’s not true or you’d be producing all the facts right and left to blow people like myself out of the water.

            What I posted about military jets viz Benghazi PRECISELY REFERENCED what objectivefactsmatter stated which was that a CAS (Close Air Support) jet — an A-10 in other words — would be “ideal to accomplish what needed to be done in Benghazi”. Of course, that’s not quite true that the A-10 would have been any more suitable than an F-16 just because it was slower. Just because some have mentioned in other blogs that CAS jets are helpful in close quarters combat when there are clear demarcations between troop lines and/or artillery and a CAS jet can shoot ‘em up without hitting any friendlies doesn’t mean a CAS jet was the right choice for INNER CITY BENGHAZI. where the deaths of civilians in all those surrounding buildings would likely have caused a huge diplomatic rift w/the militias in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya. The slow-moving A-10 would also have been at risk of SAMs if it had had to perform multiple low, slow approaches in order to be sure of its targets. The objections go on and on and on… But, as we all read, hieronymous wrote out a long post disputing the suitability of planes being dispatched to Benghazi both in terms of their armaments and their need for specific types of ground support to render their firepower effective and accurate. So, worry about your own bona fides. If you’ve got a problem w/information being supplied from definitive military manufacturing web sites, then you’ve either got a problem w/FACTS or you’ve got a problem IN GENERAL.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve never, ever written that we need government intervention to drive progress.”

            Hello? The ACA is…

          • Americana

            No, that’s government intervention because there is a monopolistic business that refuses to attend to the needs of all Americans for health care even thought that is their business. Many monopolistic businesses have had to face government showdowns over their business practices. Different animal entirely even if you don’t see it that way.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, that’s government intervention because there is a monopolistic business…

            Uh, no. To the extend that anticompetitive factors exist it’s mostly the fault of our government. And we already have very well established laws for dealing with actual monopolies. You should do a little research.

            Search

            antitrust law history usa

            “…that refuses to attend to the needs of all Americans for health care even thought that is their business.”

            Why would people buy it? Oh, right. Virtual monopoly or something, You know who has a virtual monopoly already? The US Federal Government.

            “Many monopolistic businesses have had to face government showdowns over their business practices. Different animal entirely even if you don’t see it that way.”

            We don’t regulate an industry to deal with antitrust allegations. I don’t see it you’re way because I know the law quite a bit better and I know roughly how the government should approach allegations of monopoly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Socialista sicko”

            I don’t remember that one.

          • Americana

            No, the point is that there are soooo many slurs coming from you and they all consist of the same political slanders over and over and over again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You look like you’ve got nothing to say but claim that me/someone/anyone/everyone is always lying, is always a liar and blah blah… Patently clear that’s not true or you’d be producing all the facts right and left to blow people like myself out of the water.”

            I’ve already proved that you have no clue on economics and you can’t stay focused on point on any other topic. The proof of your complete state of economic illiteracy also demonstrates that your estimates of what our military truly is capable of are going to be limited by your false ideas about wealth and how global security enables and facilitates wealth creation.

            You’re a bean counter that doesn’t even understand where the beans come from. That’s pretty lame. I mean you probably have some usable skills but factoring in your crappy unhinged attitude makes you not worthy hiring. But I’m sure our government has a place for you if you continue to kiss the right arses.

          • Americana

            Right, I can’t stay focused on any point on any topic..and I don’t have a clue on economics. Then how is it that I’ve managed to point out things like Drakken lying about his claims that he heard incontrovertible orders being given to “STAND DOWN” or that Doc2Go claims to be in charge of troops? Yep, I’m oblivious and I’m not perceptive and I can’t stay focused on what’s being said. Yep, that’ll be the day… Again, you make unsubstantiated claims in order to further the perceived superiority of yourself. However, no one who’s superior in intellect would have written that ” I had not put much thought in to it”, given that he’s been pondering these VERY SAME POSSIBILITIES FOR OVER A YEAR. If you hadn’t put any thought into it then you shouldn’t be scripting the types of posts you’ve been writing. But, the SCRIPT is the thing even if it’s not an accurate deSCRIPTion of the possibilities.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You think this makes sense?

            “Right, I can’t stay focused on any point on any topic..and I don’t have a clue on economics. Then how is it that I’ve managed to point out things like Drakken lying about his claims that he heard incontrovertible orders being given to “STAND DOWN” or that Doc2Go claims to be in charge of troops?”

            “Yep, I’m oblivious and I’m not perceptive and I can’t stay focused on what’s being said.”

            I’m sure you have some abilities but they’re far weaker than you seem to realize. And your style does not even come close to optimizing your ability to communicate well with others.

            “Again, you make unsubstantiated claims in order to further the perceived superiority of yourself.”

            Unsubstantiated claims about what? I never ask anyone to believe anything I say that they can’t verify.

            ” I had not put much thought in to it”, given that he’s been pondering these VERY SAME POSSIBILITIES FOR OVER A YEAR. If you hadn’t put any thought into it then you shouldn’t be scripting the types of posts you’ve been writing. But, the SCRIPT is the thing even if it’s not an accurate deSCRIPTion of the possibilities.”

            This is another good example you still communist moron. What I said was, very clearly, that I had not put thought in to what the ideal response to Benghazi would have been assuming I can look at the entire inventory of aircraft – as if we had the mission planned for weeks or longer. Why would I spend a lot of time doing that? It might be interesting but I’m actually busy most of the time.

          • Americana

            You’re telling me I can’t stay focused on any subject. I’m sarcastically responding, “RIGHT, I can’t stay focused on any point on any topic… Instead of you LEAPING into your mindless sneering, re-read that sentence w/the understanding I’m being sarcastic.

            >>>SARC ON.<<<<

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, dumbass, the whole board is not going to adapt to you. MK? I’m not – and it looks like nobody else is really interested in your take on economics, the “happiness” clause and how government interventions that lead to anticompetitive conditions somehow call for even greater government intervention.

            I’m really sorry that you can’t follow along.

            Run along and count your beans and if you count the correct ones I’ll acknowledge the fact. But you’re counting the wrong beans and patting yourself on the back. So what do you need the boards for when we’re talking about things that are almost entirely unrelated to your rants? We don’t need help calculating weapons stores or reviewing which AGM might be ideal for a given application. It might come up, but you’re not presenting this knowledge in a productive way.

            You’re counting the wrong beans even though you’re absolutely convinced that you got the count right. Maybe you did, but we didn’t ask you to count those beans.

            Get it?

          • Americana

            What a silly man!#$!#$#$ Listen, fella, if I’m posting technical material about fighter jets from the manufacturer’s web site or from a military web site that disprove your false claims when you’ve stated those CAS jets were the solution in Benghazi, that’s “counting the right beans” as far as I’m concerned. If you can’t disprove my posts, you don’t try your usual OFM magic trick of pulling the wool over my eyes while saying to everyone else in the conversation, “Americana doesn’t know what she’s talking about” and slapping several jingoistic labels on me simultaneously.

            I’ll count whatever beans come up in ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS, GET IT? I’ll DO RE-COUNTS when I know there’s been misrepresentation of the total number of beans or the sources of those beans, etc. Who gives a rip if you “acknowledge that (I’ve) counted the right ones”? Lordy, where do you get the idea that YOU are the paradigm of HONEST INTERPRETATION OF FACTS on FPM and that you’ve got any standing to be telling me about what beans I should be counting? As you keep telling me, this country is a representative democracy and if I cared to have you represent my POV, I’d ask you to do so. Otherwise, you’re just another voice in the crowd whose facts and BEAN COUNTING frequently need to be corrected.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you want to continue to face ridicule be my guest.

          • Americana

            Oh, that technical material about the A-10 was seen as being inaccurate or not relevant to the conversation? That information in conjunction w/hieronymous’ posts on the matter very clearly established that those jets whether F-16s or A-10s were not ideal for use in the Benghazi situation. You then reverted to your other alternative — helicopters at Aviano — however, helicopters flying from Aviano would have arrived even later than the two types of jets and would have missed the entire engagement, both the one at the consular compound and the following assault at the CIA building. If YOU want to continue to face ridicule, continue posting nonsensical strategies using planes that aren’t suitable for the type of engagement and helicopters that can’t get to where they need to be in time to do anything. Yep, you’re someone who definitely needs to get a job in the army in LOGISTICS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh, that technical material about the A-10 was seen as being inaccurate or not relevant to the conversation? That information in conjunction w/hieronymous’ posts on the matter very clearly established that those jets whether F-16s or A-10s were not ideal for use in the Benghazi situation. ”

            There is no ideal high speed jet for that mission. Maybe Harriers, but they are still not ideal. That’s just playing with theories.

            Again, we’re not debating ideal platform except that you want to run around hysterically looking for some way to be clearly “right” and to get the conservatives to say something you can stupidly laugh at.

            Try to follow the conversations. You’re counting beans that nobody asked you to count. And you’re still doing it.

            Oh, thanks for pointing out that attack helicopters can’t fly Mach 20. To save you time, there is no helicopter that can even break the sound barrier – which is Mach 1. Mach 20 is ~20 times greater than Mach 1. K?

          • Americana

            (OFM) “There is no ideal high speed jet for that mission. Maybe Harriers, but they are still not ideal. That’s just playing with theories.”

            You’re not just playing w/theories. You’ve been trying to sell the same old same old theory from years ago that F-16s or A-10s could have served a legitimate tactical purposed in Benghazi. If that weren’t true, you wouldn’t have fought to legitimize the source for your information — a former pilot’s claims about the two aircraft. I’m not “running around hysterically looking for some way to be clearly “right” because there’s no need for that. It is PLAIN FACT that neither of those jets would have been ideal for the TIME of the attack(in the middle of the night) or the location (inner city Benghazi w/very limited intelligence assets being able to indicate where the jihadist mortar batteries were posted).

            So you’re going to end on the totally transparent ploy of making yourself out to be a master of aerodynamic design by indicating you knew that no helicopter could ever approach Mach 1, never mind approach Mach 20? Considering helicopter designs have never even come close to breaking Mach 1 because of their cumbersome design, it’s hardly likely any helicopter design will ever break the sound barrier. The fact I stated the top speed of the Apache attack helicopter was simply to indicate how long it would have taken for Apaches to have reached Benghazi. That had nothing to do w/your bizarre claims about its being capable of Mach 1 or Mach 20 in an effort to trip me up. Sheesh. Such cheap ploys and tactics you attempt to use!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’re not just playing w/theories. You’ve been trying to sell the same old same old theory from years ago that F-16s or A-10s could have served a legitimate tactical purposed in Benghazi.”

            Bean counter,

            When it comes to making decisions, working out what is “appropriate” is less important than working out what the best decisions are under the circumstances. I don’t need your Tourette syndrome bean counting.

          • Americana

            If the following sentence were really what you meant to state, (OFM) “When it comes to making decisions, working out what is “appropriate” is less important than working out what the best decisions are under the circumstances,” then you should be good w/what decisions were made in Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s narrowed down somewhat. No thanks to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s obvious you have no idea what anyone is after.

          • Americana

            Just pointing out how contradictory that sentence is given your whole Benghazi stance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You spit out bean counts that nobody asks for and then you pretend it’s my fault when you’re confused.

          • Americana

            Ah, so NOW the determining factor whether facts should ever actually be brought into a discussion where the discussion supposedly HINGES ON KNOWING THE FACTS is that some facts aren’t ASKED FOR by SOME of the individuals in the discussion?

            This sentence is an admission from you that you don’t give a rip what the facts are, you’re simply interested in your biased evaluation of what you think you know about a situation and the limited facts presented. And you’re one of those claiming there are “limited information voters” running around freely and voting their mind without being informed?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Relevance matters.

            2 + 2 = 4

            Why do you keep arguing over facts? Why don’t you care about facts? Why do I keep having to remind you that 2 + 2 = 4?

          • Americana

            Why do you keep denying facts? You’ve been told over the course of two years that jets wouldn’t serve a reasonable tactical purpose in Benghazi yet you continue to bring them up each and every thread about Benghazi as if they remain a viable defensive/offensive tool given the conditions in Benghazi. You even had the gall this time around to pretend you hadn’t had time to consider those aspects of the Benghazi incident. Really, you haven’t had TIME????? When the attack took place two years ago and you’ve been mulling things over ever since???? You’re not the king of intellectual efficiency if you can’t parse the facts given that period of time.

            You think you can pretend to be the hall monitor for relevance by claiming you’re choosing relevance over disinformation when you’re discouraging people from posting actual information? You’ve said don’t post technical information about those two jets while you continue to post what can only be described as DISINFORMATION, and that’s the term one uses if one is being kind.

          • Americana

            If all you had to do was 1st grade math in order to prove the validity of your “facts” to the FPM audience your presence on FPM might be valuable. As things stand though, the fact you DISPUTE INDISPUTABLE FACTS makes you a liability.

            For instance, you’ve brought up the fact that “Aviano wasn’t considered as a base from which to draw assets for Benghazi” when it obviously was considered and then discounted as a source for any IMMEDIATELY deployable assets to Benghazi.

            From their joint testimony on the first Congressional hearings on Benghazi:

            Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., pressed Dempsey on why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren’t sent to Libya. Dempsey said it would have taken up to 20 hours to get the planes ready and on their way, and he added that they would have been the “wrong tool for the job.”

            Panetta later explained to the committee, “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. … You have to have good intelligence.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Virtually every “bean count” that you offered was already stipulated to. You’re not helping. You’re just throwing little tantrums.

          • Americana

            If every bean count I offered this time around was already addressed then why were those tactical aspects brought up this time around? If we’ve already covered the unsuitability of high-speed F-16s and slower but still tactically unsuitable A-10s in previous conversations, then why did you bring them up again and suggest they were a realistic possibility? Why did you attempt to discourage me from posting legitimate technical information about those two jets when you were claiming they were suitable for attacking in Benghazi?

            You’re the one throwing tantrums. You expect to be able to continue to control the flow of the discussion by telling people what they can and can’t post, that they’ll be less highly regarded as a contributor if they contribute material that goes against the general flow, etc., etc. Don’t write out of both sides of your mouth especially when you’ve got a forked tongue, the word splatter is something terrible.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            IIRC the F16 scenario was brought up to demonstrate that we don’t know who is lying. That’s it.

          • Americana

            No, the F-16 scenario was NOT just brought up to illustrate who was potentially lying.

            The F-16s were brought up in the context of the (SIMPLISTIC) tactical strategy of buzzing the jihadis and (SUPPOSEDLY) “scaring them off” just by virtue of buzzing them at a low altitude and, if that failed, the U.S. pilots were supposed to simply blast away w/their rockets and guns at the surrounding buildings and at the surrounding people on the streets.

            These F-16 and A-10 pilots were supposed to shoot up the area regardless if those people on the surrounding streets were American CIA officers or not or whether they were Libyan civilians who were coming to the aid of Ambassador Stevens or not. (Ambassador Stevens was, after all, rescued by Libyans and taken to a hospital. It wasn’t the American forces who were able to locate him and take him out of the consular compound.)

          • Americana

            Why looky, yet another post that has vanished.

            If every bean count I’d offered was already accounted for, then WHY are you bringing them up again as if you’re disclosing FRESH INFORMATION? As for me throwing tantrums, you’re the one throwing tantrums and trying to determine what information other people are allowed to bring to the table. You tell me not to post technical information about jets that you’re claiming could have been a lifesaver in Benghazi? When several factors precluded them being the correct tool for the job? And you don’t want their suitability to be part of the discussion? Sorry, fella, you’re not going to be telling me what the matter is under discussion nor how to work through the information.

            Here’s testimony from Gen. Martin Dempsey:

            Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., pressed Dempsey on why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren’t sent to Libya. Dempsey said it would have taken up to 20 hours to get the planes ready and on their way, and he added that they would have been the “wrong tool for the job.”

            Panetta later explained to the committee, “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. … You have to have good intelligence.”

          • Americana

            It’s not my confusion you should be concerned over. It’s your own confusion that’s evidenced by your writing. Just because you’ve had a tolerant coterie around you prior to now whose members didn’t point out odd inconsistencies in your reasoning/writing didn’t mean those lax standards were going to continue to prevail. Now that you’ve had a few people puncture the air in your tires, you’re claiming “Foul” and saying those folks haven’t been tasked w/”counting those beans” and that “anyway, no one is interested in that particular bean count”. Pretty strange tactic to take stating either one of those on a debate forum.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Listen you little freak, you’ve done nothing to advance your cause unless you simply like wasting time. I don’t give a crap about you. I’ve seen how you pull the same crap time after time in every thread you show up in. So I’m changing the game.

            If you like it this new way, then just carry on.

          • Americana

            Listen you little freak, you’ve done nothing to advance anything but disinformation and you obviously like wasting time or you wouldn’t craft mutually reinforcing, self-referencing sentences like the following:

            (OFM) “Whatever the official response is to explaining why they didn’t call support from Aviano, the investigation can then move on with the understanding that Aviano was not among the contingency plans. Notice the official response was NOT THAT IS WAS CONSIDERED but that IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG.”

            ((Quiet!!! There’s a genius at work in the above two sentences!))

            Actually, whatever other military assets and bases were considered and then discounted as not being reasonable and feasible possibilities probably weren’t given specific mention within the official timeline. They would be covered under the sentence: “Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out.” As for how Sec. of Def. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey described the total number of assets that were evaluated and discarded as being impractical, I’m sure there was testimony given as to why Aviano didn’t enter the picture. Ah, here’s that little bit of testimony from Gen. Martin Dempsey as it appeared in a Huffpo story: Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., pressed Dempsey on why F-16 jets in Aviano, Italy, weren’t sent to Libya. Dempsey said it would have taken up to 20 hours to get the planes ready and on their way, and he added that they would have been the “wrong tool for the job.”

            Here’s the official timeline:

            September 11 (Events are listed using the time in Benghazi)

            9:42 p.m. — Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

            9:59 p.m. — A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but it is unarmed.

            10:32 p.m. — The Office of the Secretary Defense and the Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. “The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey.”

            11 p.m. — Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding situation and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled.

            11:10 p.m. — The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

            11:30 p.m. — All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial assault.

            September 12

            Midnight to 2 a.m. — Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain, to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders a special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

            1:30 a.m. — A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrives in Benghazi.

            2:39 a.m. to 2:53 a.m. — The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States.

            5:15 a.m. — Attackers launch assault on a second U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We can read. OK spammer. Thanks though. You probably mean well.

          • Americana

            You live for SPAM. You spout SPAW. You disgorge SPAM. You demand the right to spew the right BRAND of SPAM. That’s why your new BB handle shall be Sir Spamalot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Some people like my spam and find it nourishing. You on the other time make few sales.

            But to a communist that’s not relevant, is it. You have this notion of fairness and your own little world to promote.

          • Americana

            Yes, I’ll bet some people like your Spam. You serve it up w/that endless source of true grits you’ve got brewing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re clearly the oracle we all petition when we want to know what POTUS is doing with foreign policy.

          • Americana

            Those people obviously live on junk food for the brain… Your spam is all that on a slice of white bread.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This again raises the questions about why exactly you find it useful to spend so much time here.

          • Americana

            Obviously I’m beginning to worry about the republic.

          • Americana

            It’s obvious when you’re throwing up pointless chaff because you’re out of options.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, you don’t know what anyone is after so you’re evaluation is worthless.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m pretty sure I know what everyone is after. Trouble is, I’d prefer you take a different route to getting there that doesn’t include lying up a storm and disinformation that’s so ludicrous it makes the American populace look like idiots en masse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What are we after? Put it in your own words.

          • Americana

            I’m a bean counter? At least I don’t pretend to have been mulling over Benghazi for over a year and I’m not pretending “I haven’t had sufficient time to think about it” like you just wrote in one of your posts! As for your hodge lodge idiocy contained in this following sentence as to (OFM) “what our military is truly capable of and that its capabilities are linked to false ideas about wealth and how global security enables and facilitates wealth creation,” I won’t even go through the facets of this sentence because it’s obvious you’re deflecting from your continuing assertions about Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What I posted about military jets viz Benghazi PRECISELY REFERENCED what objectivefactsmatter stated which was that a CAS (Close Air Support) jet — an A-10 in other words — would be “ideal to accomplish what needed to be done in Benghazi”. Of course, that’s not quite true that the A-10 would have been any more suitable than an F-16 just because it was slower. Just because some have mentioned in other blogs that CAS jets are helpful in close quarters combat when there are clear demarcations between troop lines and/or artillery and a CAS jet can shoot ‘em up without hitting any friendlies doesn’t mean a CAS jet was the right choice for INNER CITY BENGHAZI. where the deaths of civilians in all those surrounding buildings would likely have caused a huge diplomatic rift w/the militias in Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya.”

            There is no high speed jet designed specifically for close air support in an urban environment as far as I know. The Cannon is almost too big in the A10. Even the AC130 is an adapted configuration and that’s not a fast plane. But whatever. I would suppose an attack helicopter might be better if we had to select the ideal platform. I had not put much thought in to it. Actually what you really want to do is overwhelm them with more than one kind of approach. There really is no one uncontroversial way to respond to such a scenario. But it’s lame to say well we weren’t prepared so suck it up and stop hurting our feelings with all of the questions.

            The point is that too little was done and we were caught with our pants down. The public wants a debriefing. At least those of us that recognize the danger of trusting this president want it.

          • Americana

            (objectivefactsmatter) “There is no high speed jet designed specifically for close air support in an urban environment as far as I know.” It’s fairly strange you’d write this sentence after over a year and a half of wrangling over Benghazi as well as insulting the direct military knowledge of hieronymous as to jets in urban combat. It’s also strange that you’d write this following sentence when you’ve had PLENTY OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT the circumstances/timeline in Benghazi: (OFM) “I would suppose an attack helicopter might be better if we had to select the ideal platform. I had not put much thought in to it.”

            If you’ve been writing about the use of airpower in Benghazi for well over a year, the pros and cons of using jets vs helicopters should already have been clear in your mind a YEAR AGO. It should also have been known that HELICOPTERS WEREN’T CLOSE ENOUGH IN THEATER to be considered being dispatched. Yet here you are, trying to pretend that you “haven’t had the time to think about it.” Are you kidding me????? If you’re moaning about the lack of speed of government decisions, lemme tell you, the government has NOTHING ON YOU if this is the speed at which you’re capable of making tactical decisions.

            That’s right, there isn’t such a plane that’s ideal for urban combat then why is it you all have been proclaiming that jets should have been used and that those jets would have saved the day? Jets are used when our armed forces are not concerned about civilian deaths and the jet pilots know precisely where the friendlies are and where the enemy positions are. Jet pilots vector in on the basis of intelligence on the ground as well as their own recognizance and, if they fire at will, it’s generally because they’ve been informed by ground reconnaissance as to the correct locations for enemy troops or that they’re free of damaging anything other than their intended target and enemy troops.

            “Too little was done” is not exactly what I take away from this horrific episode. It’s not what is done the day of an attack but the months of preparation building up to sliding the protective shield around the diplomatic facilities themselves. That is above all the purview of the State Dept. and the decisions in Benghazi were the direct decision of the U.S. Ambassador.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “(objectivefactsmatter) “There is no high speed jet designed specifically for close air support in an urban environment as far as I know.” It’s fairly strange you’d write this sentence after over a year and a half of wrangling over Benghazi as well as insulting the direct military knowledge of hieronymous as to jets in urban combat. It’s also strange that you’d write this following sentence when you’ve had PLENTY OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT the circumstances/timeline in Benghazi: (OFM) “I would suppose an attack helicopter might be better if we had to select the ideal platform. I had not put much thought in to it.”

            Is that your hyper-verbose way of claiming that I’m wrong? Please name which plane was designed for CAS in urban environments.

            Where would we get an attack helicopter if they were not already stationed nearby? Supposedly there was >nothing< and giving every benefit of the doubt to the liar in chief people like me looked at what was undeniably available and that led me to Aviano. Others had the same idea.

            Really you need to shut up and take your meds if you can't even follow the conversations.

          • Americana

            There you go again, making the (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) claim there were attack helicopters at Aviano and therefore they should have been used and they would have arrived in Benghazi in under two hours.If you can get an Apache attack helicopter to Benghazi in under two hours from Aviano, Italy, I’m sure the Joint Chiefs would LOVE to talk w/you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh shut up.

            Everyone knows attack helicopters must be capable of Mach 20 or we simply won’t bother with them. Plus the lasers could have taken out any terrorists without even leaving the base. Everyone knows this.

          • Americana

            Top speed for Apache helicopters (and you expect Apaches to get from Aviano, Italy to Benghazi, Libya in time to have saved the Ambassador and Information Officer who were dead within two hours of the beginning of the assault on the consular compound?):

            Two high-performance turboshaft engines and maximum cruise speed of 284 kph

            http://www.boeing.com/boeing/rotorcraft/military/ah64d/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Two high-performance turboshaft engines and maximum cruise speed of 284 kph”

            NO WAY! MACH20!

            Idiot. Who the F would fly helicopters from Aviano on a combat mission in Lbya you silly strawman factory?

            Firstly, I clearly was using attack helicopters as a contrast with the F16s. Period. I said ideally (assuming you have complete freedom to choose which platform to use). I didn’t say it was feasible nor did I ever say they’d come from Aviano you psychopathic liar! They’d be launched from a ship or pre-staged if we had all options available.

            Stop lying – you crazy psychopath.

          • Americana

            You’re the straw man factory. You were the one to have brought up helicopters as the next option after the two jets were shown to be ineffective for the type of mission Benghazi was. **You don’t bring up totally bizarre and wacko tactical choices and I won’t bother mentioning they’re non-starters.** If there were ANY Apache helicopters on any nearby ships within tactical range of Benghazi, they WOULD have been considered. The fact you now try to claim you were merely suggesting them as the ideal platform to use vs either of those jets doesn’t excuse the highly suggestive wording you used.

            So, please STOP LYING YOU CRAZY PSYCHOPATH because I’m not the only one who’s going to shoot down your crazy-azz tactical stupidities. No, better change that last word to “ABSURDITIES”.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If there were ANY Apache helicopters on any nearby ships within tactical range of Benghazi, they WOULD have been considered.”

            Bean counter, you’re not following the conversation. You’re just a bullshitter throwing up chaff that is not helpful.

          • Americana

            You’re throwing up chaff and you don’t even realize it’s chaff until someone points it out to you.

            (OFM) “When it comes to making decisions, working out what is “appropriate” is less important than working out what the best decisions are under the circumstances.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go ahead and find a GIF of some kid thumbing his nose at me. That can be your closing argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 4 hours ago: “You’re throwing up chaff and you don’t even realize it’s chaff until someone points it out to you.”

          • Americana

            Don’t bother rolling your eyes after the fact, just be more thoughtful when you write.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your standards matter so much. How much? This much.

          • Americana

            The facts of your writing being lax in terms of meaning bear me out, they don’t bear you out.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            My writing is often lax.

            You are often arguing like an idiot savant. And you can’t get on track no matter what anyone asks of you.

          • Americana

            As I’ve said before, at least ‘idiot’ in my case is followed by the qualifier ‘savant.’ Some in this crowd must settle for just ‘idiot.’

          • Americana

            It’s not that you’re writing is so much lax as it is that it’s inaccurate and misleading. As for arguing w/you over you calling me an “idiot savant,” well, I’m not going to. I at least have been accorded the term “idiot savant” which gives me at least a modicum of sophisticated intelligence about some spheres whereas some in the crowd are left just w/the term “idiot” as their title.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m sure you’re a very good bean counter. You need to work on obedience and communicating clearly with others.

            Good luck.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “You need to work on obedience and communicating w/others”.

            Those are your recommendation to me — “obedience” and “communicating clearly”? After all this bullpuckey from you, it comes down to you being able to assess that I’m a “very good bean counter” but that I need “to work on obedience and communicating clearly w/others”. Hey, I guess you’re on to something. Bean-counting after all is at the heart of logistics and logistics is where the failure in Benghazi occurred.

            Most folks would say I communicate clearly. In fact, I communicate so clearly and unequivocally that you’re claiming I’m lying or I’m wrong or I’m any number of other things… However, the facts are clear. If all you can do at this point is obscure the facts or try to construt

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you want to be a useful bean counter you need to follow some kind of protocols. Or else it’s just noise.

            Almost every comment from you is noise. Your signal to noise ratio is very low. Your comments are practically useless. You’re a nuisance.

            Clear enough for you?

          • Americana

            Whereas your signal to noise ratio is extremely HIGH? That’s hardly the case, as we all know. You’re all NOISE and when you attempt to address facts, the facts are always rife w/STATIC, i.e., the signal just doesn’t come through clearly through all the obfuscation and name calling. Why? Because your posts, like the one recently about Leon Panetta, are all statically-charged innuendo of the most heinous and libelous kind which you never are able to back up w/substantive information. Then you backtrack and accuse people of misunderstanding your posts when people detect the BS quotient and call you on the BS. You should be able to provide FACTS that solidify your position. You shouldn’t just immediately resort to name-calling and finger-pointing if you’ve actually got the FACTUAL UPPER HAND.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            We know you don’t like it here. I doubt anyone cares.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Because your posts, like the one recently about Leon Panetta, are all statically-charged innuendo of the most heinous and libelous kind which you never are able to back up w/substantive information. ”

            Idiot,

            Search “realpolitik” or “Machiavellian politics”

            Heinous libel? LOL! You’re a complete stooge!

          • Americana

            Are you an IDIOT? That was an opportunity for you to write out a CONVINCING LIST of the clearly political and real politik gains Sec. of Def. Pannetta would have gained by lying. Instead, once again, you choose to deflect and dissemble… Very telling when you do this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            There are ten thousand reasons why Panetta would not air dirty laundry in public. Loyalty to America, loyalty to Hillary, hopes of future promotions and job offers, and so forth.

            That doesn’t even mean that he’s lying. It means that he has no real motive to end all of the controversies and ten thousand legitimate reasons to expect people just need to wait. That’s long before there is any need to question his integrity in any way.

            And to answer your question, it has never been clearer who the idiot is in this conversation.

          • Americana

            Whoops, there you go again w/the insults. That little preamble that ALWAYS sets the tone for the good things to come. Well, let’s just say you need a content manager for your posts or at least someone who’ll curate your posts so there’s less repetition and less shooting in the foot.

            If Sec. of Def. Panetta had information that Benghazi was salvageable by use of any U.S. military forces then, in effect, his integrity was and remains in question and he would have been lying to the Congressional committee by omission. Care to reconsider your idiocy, Mr. Idiot Chairman of the Ad Hoc Benghazi Boys Commission?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Also look up “Manichean.”

            OK, I’ll do it for you. You’re welcome.

            Manichean

            To be Manichean is to follow the philosophy of Manichaeism, which is an old religion that breaks everything down into good or evil. It also means “duality,” so if your thinking is Manichean, you see things in black and white.

            Manichean comes from the word Mani, which is the name of an apostle who lived in Mesopotamia in the 240’s, who taught a universal religion based on what we now call dualism. If you believe in the Manichean idea of dualism, you tend to look at things as having two sides that are opposed. To Manicheans, life can be divided neatly between good or evil, light or dark, or love and hate. When you see Manichean, think “two.”

          • Americana

            Just bringing in some of that old timey religion, are you? (The remainder of my post is DELETED.)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The remainder of my post is DELETED.”

            I have no idea what that is supposed to mean to anyone else but you.

          • Americana

            It’s supposed to indicate that, unlike you, I sometimes will delete criticism if I consider it too harsh even if it’s accurate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I see.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think you need a new friend to talk to. Why don’t you split some of your rant time between spamming this place here and ranting at some other place where you can all spit on your displays and blame it on teabaggers and whatnot? That might be a healthier approach for you.

          • Americana

            The fact you want to send me on my way is simply recognition that you’re threatened by my presence. Yes, it’s hard when those fact-seeking friends show up the party…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Threatened? Like dog crap threatens the sole of my shoes. Yeah, you’re threatening alright.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m not threatening? Then why imply that you’re going to check in w/my employer and see if my employer sees my participation on FPM as being NON-PATRIOTIC and a DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC and thereby get me fired? Why threaten me in any way over my participation here on FPM? Why try to roll all the FPM boogeymen up into a bundle and attach them to me if you don’t see me as a threat? (I’m a government employee, I’m a Big Statist, I’m a Communist, I’m this that and the other…) You see, when you make a threat of pursuing direct quasi-legal action like contacting my employer in an attempt to get me fired (and hoping I’m employed by the government for extra leverage on your behalf), you have to be able to explain why you made such threat(s) if you decide you want to go to court under the totally false narrative that I’ve been harassing you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And for the record I never saw any value in your comments. That’s why I always ignored you before. You’re a lunatic. You just go in circles. You’re like a rabid dog.

          • Americana

            Dogs really don’t worry about political situations, even the rabid ones. If you don’t see the value in my comments then you wouldn’t constantly be contesting and ATTEMPTING to COUNTER THEM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually I did spend some time trying to explain to you why the Oslo Accords answer all of your rants about Israel. But month after month you chose instead to rant about oppressed Palestinians and so forth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Admit that you’re here for spite. You’re here because of hatred. You’re here to argue endlessly with people, not to try to understand what objections they have. I’ve seen you fight with others a few times and I just roll my eyes. Why would I try to talk to a lunatic like you?

            But of course you should take off since you’re only here to destroy. When will you be sated?

          • Americana

            Why would I be here for spite when you’re here for ?????? What a bunkum claim! As far as I’m concerned, I’m here for clarity. Why would anyone like me talk w/a lunatic like you? Or a lunatic like Pete? When all you do (both of you) is throw around terms like lunatic and Communist and each and every post’s introductory greeting is “Dumbass” and then further insults are tucked in the post itself?

            I’m obviously not “just here to destroy” just because you say so. You make these totally bizarre claims and then you expect them to have the ultimate validity. You either believe in free speech or you don’t. You don’t simply try to derail conversations w/insults when you could derail them in your favor w/facts that back up your version. Get that through your head. Facts = Victory (of a sort). Lies and dissimulation don’t = Victory. (It’s pretty funny Vostra Guida – “Our Guide” – is shadowing your every comment. Go, Guido (sic)!!!!)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            All of that chaff with no answers. Look at your comment stream. What it is that you think you accomplish here other than harass people?

          • Americana

            As I’ve said repeatedly, if you think someone voicing their opinion and sharing legitimate information qualifies as “harassment” then you really don’t endorse free speech. Harassment is more along the lines of what you routinely produce which is produce vile comments replete w/the worst insults and libelous claims w/no other focus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s right. I harass harassers like you. Very good. You’re starting to get it.

          • Americana

            No, you harass everyone unless they voice the precise opinions you endorse. Whatever the underlying reasons for your attempt to ban free speech by legitimate voices, it doesn’t bode well for the respecting of free speech.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, you harass everyone unless they voice the precise opinions you endorse.”

            That’s what every jerkoff spammer like you claims. But the fact is that I have an open comment stream and people can judge whether I’m intolerant of other opinions or just intolerant of a-holes.

            When I read your comment stream I see nothing but your idiotic Tourette-like attacks on people.

          • Americana

            At least I have standards such that my writing isn’t as bizarre and irrational as yours:

            (OFM) “”Whatever the official response is to explaining why they didn’t call support from Aviano, the investigation can then move on with the understanding that Aviano was not among the contingency plans. Notice the official response was NOT THAT IS WAS CONSIDERED but that IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG.”

          • Americana

            You are making INFEASIBLE TACTICAL DECISIONS after the fact. Never mind thinking that you’re making tactical suggestions on the basis of FACTS that AREN’T FACTS. If you can construct a FEASIBLE plan whereby those planes could have been shown to have arrived in time to prevent the consular compound being overrun then prove it. If you can prove that those planes could have been used in an urban firefight w/literally no guidance as to targets other than shooting at muzzle flashes, I’d love to hear it. But the fact is those planes would have arrived after the compound was overrun. Therefore, there is no tactical reason for dispatching them.

            As far as I can tell, hieronymous is telling you specifically why your recommendations about courses of action wouldn’t have worked and would have likely been even more catastrophic than what occurred.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Please. If it was that risky to fly some F16s in to Libya on that day and we knew about those risks, there is more to the scandal. We’re the ones that put those a-holes in charge (whoever the de facto sovereign was).

            The inquiry does not hinge on finding out why they didn’t send jets. The affair stinks and we’re trying to parse the facts as they come to light. Sitting around pulling lint out of your pockets is not acceptable. If you’re just a bean counter and there were no beans on that day, fine. Don’t get all emotional when people hold your feet to the fire when you come to defend the scandalous administration.

          • Americana

            No, you’ve continually parsed the facts only to pretend two months later that you don’t have those facts that were just parsed. Apache helicopters have a top speed of 284 kph. You expect them to get from Aviano to Benghazi in time to have saved the Ambassador and the Information Officer who died within two hours of the beginning of the assault? Even a bean counter can do the math. Seemingly, you can’t.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “If it was that risky to fly some F16s in to Libya on that day and we knew about those risks, there is more to the scandal.”

            Sorry, but there you go again making the totally ARTIFICIAL and INFEASIBLE CLAIM that F-16s would be the weapon of choice to stop the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith. Don’t you EVER GET TIRED of repeating your stupidities?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re a liar. Nobody ever said it was a “weapon of choice.” The question is whether it’s a weapon of last resort or something foolish to even attempt.

            I already asked Jerry twice if he would turn down F16 support if he was on the ground that day. He declined to reply.

            Why don’t you ask him to shut me up by saying that he would have declined air support if it was him on the ground that day because F16s are suboptimal for the mission.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “The question is whether it’s a weapon of last resort or something (too) foolish to even attempt.”

            This sentence of yours shouldn’t even be added at this point in the conversation given the information that you’ve been handed previously by hieronymous. Of course F-16s and A-10s are weapons of last resort in this incident and it would also have been foolish to even attempt to use either of them once the battle had joined to close quarters and the consular compound was breached. Because at that point, w/none of the necessary tactical units on the ground that would have been required for giving adequate, actionable intelligence to the pilots of those jets, those jets would have been able to do nothing other than bomb the surrounding buildings. Something those jets would not have been allowed to do because of the CIA officers on the ground around the consular compound.

            I’m sure he feels as I do that you’re simply trying for a rhetorical smackdown w/your daring him to decline air support if he were on the ground in Benghazi. But there you go again w/your underlying assumption that those jets would have delivered “air support” given what they would have been able to do at the point they arrived in the firefight. If by giving air support, you think having them pass by overhead was giving air support then you’d be in the same boat tactically as if they’d never flown over.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Shut up blowhard bean counter. You’re just a nuisance. You add nothing to the discourse.

            “I’m sure he feels as I do that you’re simply trying for a rhetorical smackdown w/your daring him to decline air support if he were on the ground in Benghazi.”

            Looking for a yes or no answer. You present your bullcrap as though it is incontrovertible and it’s not. A clear answer to a valid question would point that out. That’s why he hasn’t answered.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “When it comes to making decisions, working out what is “appropriate” is less important than working out what the best decisions are under the circumstances.”

            I’m pretty sure he feels it’s almost impossible to reach an understanding w/you. After all, you wrote the above sentence about Benghazi and the use of jets for CAS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Then move on. Bean counting time is long past.

          • Americana

            Why are you continuing to count those beans w/their afterburners then? And, what’s worse, you’re trying to count beans — like F-16s and A-102 — that shouldn’t even be accounted for in any reasonable Benghazi equation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 7 hours ago: “Why are you continuing to count those beans w/their afterburners then?”

            To mock idiot savants like you that can’t recognize even the most blatant sarcasm. No calculations required afterburner. I believe someone might have benched a high speed pass over the enemy to intimidate them. That wasn’t even me.

            That’s just how complete your failure is to follow what people actually are saying. You need therapy. Get some help and have someone evaluate your ability to follow conversations beyond responding to specific requests for bean counts.

            “And, what’s worse, you’re trying to count beans — like F-16s and A-102 — that shouldn’t even be accounted for in any reasonable Benghazi equation.”

            This is as simple as I can make it. Whatever the official response is to explaining why they didn’t call support from Aviano, the investigation can then move on with the understanding that Aviano was not among the contingency plans. Notice the official response was not that it was considered but that it would take too long. It’s part of the investigation. Even though you think you’re shoring up the administration’s butt-covering you really are not doing it effectively. It’s just more chaff.

            Can you possibly get clued in, ever?

          • Americana

            (OFM) “Whatever the official response is to explaining why they didn’t call support from Aviano, the investigation can then move on with the understanding that Aviano was not among the contingency plans. Notice the official response was not that it was considered but that it would take too long.”

            The idiot strikes again… Those two sentences are mutually reinforcing, no need for there to be further DEEP investigation of the forensic sort that you seem to excel at in your spare time nor for there to be excessive mulling over of why Aviano was considered and then discounted because of unfeasible flight and preparation time. You answered the question why Aviano was a no-go by writing in the second sentence that “it would take too long.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            The investigation is not over and doesn’t center on the controversy over which platform or group would have been ideal to lead. The question is why Libya was in such a state of chaos and we apparently had no serious plans to respond to anything.

            We broke it and left it there. That’s the controversy. A certain political party doesn’t want to accept responsibility for anything. It’s the same party that promises magic economic solutions to “health care.”

            They’re a bunch of liars and you’re an idiot savant that cranks out administration talking points and uncontroversial statistics about fuel burn rates and so forth.

            To put it simply, you’re throwing up chaff for a party of liars.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Funny, I thought you recently agreed that you don’t speak for him.

          • Americana

            Let’s just say having read all his posts to you on Benghazi, I’m sure of several things about his attitude toward your reasoning that’s on display in that sentence.

          • Americana

            There are implications in the wording of your sentence, OFM, that return us to the very same issues w/all your previous statements about the tactical use those two jets as Close Air Support jets given the firefight was in inner city Benghazi w/no spotters on the ground as to where the mortar batteries were firing from. You’ve used the words “air support” in your sentence. Effectively, those jets would have been able to fly over and COULD HAVE DONE NOTHING in the way of AIR SUPPORT without causing enormous political issues w/Libya and all the militias in Benghazi as well as putting at risk as many American lives as they could possibly have saved w/their Close Air Support strafing and rocketing of the compound and surrounding buildings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Ask Jerry if he would have turned it down if he was on the ground that day.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…without causing enormous political issues w/Libya…”

            Ahhh. You admit that it’s about politics. Finally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The slow-moving A-10 would also have been at risk of SAMs if it had had to perform multiple low, slow approaches in order to be sure of its targets.”

            There are always trade-offs. An A10 sure is faster than a helicopter. But again anyone can sit and talk only about risks and eventually your left with the idea that war is dangerous. Oh, OK. So rather than telling us all the “rational” reasons we did nothing with air support how about telling us what was learned and how we adjusted to these lessons.

            What’s that? What does that mean to say “JV team?”

            “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”

            I’m still missing something. So what have we done to adjust to the threat from the JV team? I think we they’ve expanded their power in Libya since then. This is supposed to be good stuff for us?

            How do you figure all of this crap? Ahhh. the same way that you just “know” that when the Palestinians have their own jihadi state that they’ll suddenly be quiescent with respect to jihad. Just like the MB in Egypt only better!

            See, I don’t trust you. There are lots of people that don’t trust your analysis and I’m trying to explain where the controversies are. You’re not very appreciative.

            And teaching me that tankers have to be in the air to perform midair refueling is not such a valuable lesson to offer in return. Thanks for trying.

          • Americana

            There you go lumping several topics into one topic and if I follow your lead, you’ll once again accuse me of being unable to remain on topic???? Sorry if you don’t trust my analysis but I feel I’ve had someone back my reasoning who holds immense credibility viz military matters. You don’t need to give me an overview of why my posts aren’t persuasive according to you folks, what you’re supposed to do to COUNTER THE POINTS IN MY POSTS is PROVIDE YOUR OWN FACTUAL VERSION of the scenario that you back. Who gives a rip if I have no personal credibility? The point is you’re supposed to FOCUS ON THE FACTS and the personality delivering the facts is beside the point.

            The threat from the “JV terrorist team” is worldwide. We cannot possibly cover all our diplomatic missions via traditional armed forces without substantially increasing the diplomatic security corps (money that Congress refused to allocate two years ago) or we can reduce our worldwide diplomatic footprint. If we maintain our current stance, we risk even more losses in the diplomatic corps if there is a concerted, coordinated number of attacks on diplomatic facilities that draw all the available Rapid Response Forces to a group of locations while leaving others vulnerable to attack. There are any number of scenarios I can foresee that could produce a far messier tactical scenario even than Benghazi.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sorry if you don’t trust my analysis but I feel I’ve had someone back my reasoning who holds immense credibility viz military matters.”

            You apparently can’t even figure out the objections to what you say. It’s kind of a waste of time trying to put more effort in to it if you don’t show any sign of progress at all. Jerry of course likes another voice chiming in basically supporting the idea that we should just trust our government and go along with what they say. I assume he figures that having a two party system ensures that if something truly noteworthy happens in terms of scandal that the opposing party will find it. Therefore shut up and support the incumbent administration.

            Of course if people march in the street with inane accusations about extra-judicial murder of poor innocent victims in the streets of wherever, that’s OK because those are the lower classes with legitimate gripes. People that whine about American power are losers because America already has a lot (too much?) power. That’s more or less his orientation. And yours is similar. You both have intuitive notions of “social justice” and you think the established classes should just shut up.

            “…what you’re supposed to do to COUNTER THE POINTS IN MY POSTS is PROVIDE YOUR OWN FACTUAL VERSION of the scenario that you back.”

            Dummy,

            I’m not here to serve you. I respond to you when I want to rectify dumb things that you say. That’s it. I owe you nothing. And I’ve said all along that I don’t know what happened beyond some of the details. I’m not an idiot that imagined every salient detail will come out in preliminary reports after highly controversial and politicized events that happen in foreign lands where we have very little influence.

            For some reason you can’t seem to read what people write and understand what they’re actually saying. You create controversies that don’t exist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But, as we all read, hieronymous wrote out a long post disputing the suitability of planes being dispatched to Benghazi both in terms of their armaments and their need for specific types of ground support to render their firepower effective and accurate. So, worry about your own bona fides. If you’ve got a problem w/information being supplied from definitive military manufacturing web sites, then you’ve either got a problem w/FACTS or you’ve got a problem IN GENERAL.”

            My problem is using facts only to construct excuses and throw up chaff rather than solutions. Anyone can make excuses after the fact.

          • Americana

            You are making INFEASIBLE TACTICAL DECISIONS after the fact. Never mind thinking that you’re making tactical suggestions on the basis of FACTS that AREN’T FACTS. If you can construct a FEASIBLE plan whereby those planes could have been shown to have arrived in time to prevent the consular compound being overrun then prove it. If you can prove that those planes could have been used in an urban firefight w/literally no guidance as to targets other than shooting at muzzle flashes, I’d love to hear it. But the fact is those planes would have arrived after the compound was overrun. Therefore, there is no tactical reason for dispatching them.

            As far as I can tell, hieronymous is telling you specifically why your recommendations about courses of action wouldn’t have worked and would have likely been even more catastrophic than what occurred.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But the fact is those planes would have arrived after the compound was overrun. ”

            Dumbass,

            We can’t possibly have known that at the time the decisions would need to be made.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter 6 hours ago: “I’ve never, ever written that we need government intervention to drive progress. I’ve written that sometimes government intervention is appropriate and, other times, it’s not.”

            Not needed, but is appropriate some times if you don’t like what some corporation or industry segment is doing?

            That’s not really different than what I said. Why would it be “appropriate” if it doesn’t lead to some kind of positive change?

            Full Definition of PROGRESS

            1a (1) : a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant
            (2) : a state procession
            b : a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge)
            c : an expedition, journey, or march through a region

            2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance

            3: gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of humankind

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You never “confuse me,” but the fact that you like to pretend that you do in an effort to boost your intellectual superiority over me in the eyes of fellow readers is very telling.”

            I’m actually sacrificing my “street cred” by taking you halfway seriously. You really should try to ratchet down the delusional statements. They are good for a laugh though.

            “Instead of spending all that effort, writing out mendacious lines like that, why not simply provide FACT-RICH posts that make your case?”

            You mean I should rant like you and try to show my pretty peacock feathers? So you’re an image consultant, eh?

            My “case” has been made over and over again. Now I’m basically unwinding your bullcrap.

            “The slow-moving A-10 would also have been at risk of SAMs if it had had to perform multiple low, slow approaches in order to be sure of its targets.”

            There are ways to attack literally every kind of plane we have. So forget any kind of air presence from now on because you and 0′Bama don’t want to do “stupid stuff.” And war is stupid. Let’s just face it. We shouldn’t do that kind of stupid thing. Fighting and stuff. So dangerous! Of course there are ways to suppress the attackers and so forth but never mind. Always have the excuses ready.

            Audentes Fortuna Juvat = Keep Excuses Handy!!!

          • Americana

            The fact I’m “attacking all the planes we have” on the basis of their TACTICALLY INAPPROPRIATE USE is certainly an acceptable approach to analyzing U.S. options **in Benghazi** because if we would have used either of those planes in the manner you’ve indicated is your preference, we would have ended up w/a WORSE SCENARIO than the original one of a destroyed and overrun consular facility. Besides which, EITHER of those planes would have ended up arriving at the tail end of the first attack on the consular complex and have effectively done nothing but show the flag as an after-thought. We would have looked tactically incompetent. So, as for being a stupid advocate and war being stupid and so on and so on, it’s only stupid if you conduct yourself in ways that are guaranteed to increase the damage and the fallout. You think those planes could have done the trick in the pitch dark w/basically no ground reconnaissance guidance as to their targets.

            The fact those planes would have arrived AT THE TAIL END of the first firefight at the consular compound, if then, means nothing to you. Those F-16s or A-10s could still have bombed and strafed at will…(showing the flag as you put it) and to you that would have been the IDEAL SCENARIO despite the fact that within two and a half hours, there were CIVILIAN LIBYANS who came to the rescue of the consular staff and they were in the process of EXTRICATING AMBASSADOR STEVENS from the locked SAFE ROOM to take him to the hospital. What if those A-10s had strafed the Libyans carrying the Ambassador’s body under the mistaken impression they were jihadists rescuing a wounded comrade? That’d be OK collateral damage to you?

            As for me flashing my pretty peacock feathers, you’ve got the same opportunity to put your corresponding peacock feathers on display. Better back up the feathers w/some facts though instead of concocted scenarios that haven’t a snowball’s chance of success. You’re the one who began behaving like an image consultant, telling me that if I wanted to have friends on these forums, I should do X-Y-Z. You also advised me on my writing and what I was and wasn’t allowed to post. As if anyone would listen to anyone else on that score! One posts what one feels compelled to post and to heck w/the tender emotions of folks like you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for me flashing my pretty peacock feathers, you’ve got the same opportunity to put your corresponding peacock feathers on display.”

            My point is that I’m not a wannabe peacock. You really have a hard time following people.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Those are delusions you can pretend are true but if we resume the previous Benghazi discussion, you’ll be right back on the ground w/my remarks being greatly amplified by what hieronymous has to say on the subject.”

            His comments help you attack the straw men. That’s wonderful.

            “It’s obvious he’s got an excellent command of the subject and he writes circles around most of the spurious tactical scenarios you’ve been trying to sell on Benghazi.”

            He’s a little like you but a lot easier to get back on track. You clearly have compatible worldviews with each other0 Therefore you trust him. That’s good. So if you trust him to speak so well to the issues why do you need to launch so many gratuitous rants as a way of “saving the republic” from the…crazy conservative guys like me?

            “If you can’t write a solid rebuttal of my lightly fleshed-out posts then you sure can’t hack writing a successful rebuttal of hieronymous’ posts.”

            We’re rarely talking about the same things at the same time. I choose for myself what to take seriously. Thank you very much for your concern.

            “So, again, don’t award yourself points and give yourself trophies when you haven’t achieved any knockouts. Everyone knows this is simply a tactical gambit to make it look like you “won.””

            If you have no clue what we’re talking about how could you possibly even know what I’m trying to “win?”

            “Considering you abandon the field and switch to another subject whenever the pressure really is applied like it’s being applied on Benghazi, and, suddenly, you find yourself MESMERIZED by another subject.”

            Oh, I see. You and your team determine what people want to talk about here on the conservative blog that is dedicated to fighting cultural Marxism that you don’t even believe exists. I see a problem here. Can you identify the problem?

            “Well, you might fool some folks but you don’t fool the folks who are active participants in the conversation. You might get some fly bys who think you’re the “winner” because you talk big and you talk tough, but for those who read your remarks, you out yourself too frequently for that impression to be long-lasting.”

            Dumbass, I know what the focus of the blog is. These “fly bys’ know what the blog is about. You don’t. What is the title of the article you’ve been commenting on for two weeks straight and how many times did you bring the focus back to amnesty or to anything related to it?

          • Americana

            I trust hieronymous because so far he’s never deliberately lied or tried to mislead or tried to reconfigure an argument to suit a partisan political purpose. He reads like every military general staff I’ve ever met. He doesn’t quibble over the unimportant stuff, he goes for the jugular in terms of facts and he’s thorough, hitting each and every relevant point someone puts in their posts which compels him to comment. Who knows how much we share in the way of political philosophy or the philosophy of daily life? Our relationship in terms of me expecting him to execute intellectual oversight of any posts of mine that state inappropriate military concepts is a recognition that he doesn’t punitively dissect comments about the military role. He’s pretty cut and dried.

            The blog is NOT ENTIRELY DEDICATED TO FIGHTING cultural Marxism. It’s about a whole bunch of things w/Marxism playing a leading role depending on which writer is involved. The fact you assume you can dictate the point of the web site to me is highly indicative that you’re either something beyond a mere poster here or that you have protective inclinations toward the entire gamut of the missions of the site. But if you’re not a member of the stable of writers on this site or that you’re otherwise in the employ of the web site or friends or functionaries of the owners of the web site, you don’t have the power to dictate anything to me.

            As for your typical parting shot, I don’t believe I was the one who initiated the sidewinder missiles about the Benghazi tragedy though, it’s true, I did participate in the Benghazi follow ups because I don’t like gang-ups of issues. Benghazi was roped into the discussion by someone like yourself who was hoping to tie up a large Xmas package of failure after failure after failure under the main complaint of the blog which was about amnesty and attribute them all to Pres. Obama’s incompetence or executive overreach or whatever.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think he’s already married.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The blog is NOT ENTIRELY DEDICATED TO FIGHTING cultural Marxism. It’s about a whole bunch of things w/Marxism playing a leading role depending on which writer is involved.”

            Actually, no. The entire theory about why “we” misjudge, why YOU misjudge events in Israel and around the world is because you are a neo-Marxist dupe that accepts neo-Marxist theories as “common sense.” You do it in economic realms as well as in your calculations related to our enemies. The root problem is the insanity of treating Marx as more than just myopic social criticism.

            You don’t get what you don’t get.

            Get it? No you don’t.

          • Americana

            What I “don’t get” is why you’re such a senescent political animal that you don’t recognize when someone doesn’t fall into your political niches. Putting a round peg in a square hole just because you want to win points in an argument doesn’t declare you the winner because you’re falsifying the discussion. Telling me I’m “a neo-Marxist that accepts neo-Marxist theories as common sense” when the truth is otherwise is simply your self-importance about being able to read between the lines. Though considering you can’t read OUTSIDE THE LINES, I find it absurd you think you’re one to read between the lines. As for failing to read the situation in Israel, there again, you attribute far too much understanding to yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What I “don’t get” is why you’re such a senescent political animal that you don’t recognize when someone doesn’t fall into your political niches.”

            Dumbass,

            Disagreement over POV and promoting false ideas are two different kinds of conflict. I don’t mind people expressing different views.

            “Telling me I’m “a neo-Marxist that accepts neo-Marxist theories as common sense” when the truth is otherwise is simply your self-importance about being able to read between the lines.”

            Explain to me what neo-Marxism is. Neo-Marxism is things like reading our US Constitution and saying things like the “happiness” clause means people have rights to put demands on the government because they’re unhappy about health care. That’s just one example. Another example is saying things like as the developing nations grow stronger we need to accept that we’ll have a smaller share of the global pie. It’s a lot of nonsense that eventually comes down to the assertion that private capital is not sufficiently democratic, which totally contradicts our US constitution and our values.

            The USA is a meritocracy with expectations that some people WILL grow powerful and others will not. There are mechanisms to keep that in approximate balance without destroying the incentives to work on being productive in the first place.

            The USA is a constitutional republic with democratic processes that allows people to live with sufficient freedom to the extent that they do not infringe on the actual rights (not perceived rights) of others. It is my actual right to grow richer and more powerful (pursuit of happiness) than you or any other envious lout. It’s good for you that you look up and want more. It’s bad for you that you think the solution to your envy is to lobby the government to make you happy or whole when you don’t even understand the first thing about our American law.

          • Americana

            Ah, but you don’t understand about monopolistic business practices then.

            (OFM) “Another example is saying things like as the developing nations grow stronger we need to accept that we’ll have a smaller share of the global pie. It’s a lot of nonsense that eventually comes down to the assertion that private capital is not sufficiently democratic, which totally contradicts our US constitution and our values.”

            Why is it you always write posts claiming preposterous underlying details about the other person’s POV such as shown in the above post? I’ve never said America would have a smaller piece of the global pie as the last developing nations grow into their economic power. What I’ve said is that our multinational American corporations have a choice to make on the score of whether they support AMERICAN JOBS or INTERNATIONAL JOBS or try to do a better job of supporting both. Of course there will be American economic tiers that will benefit enormously from the development of the third world, but that won’t benefit ALL AMERICANS.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Ah, but you don’t understand about monopolistic business practices then.”

            I know the legal definitions according to American law.

            “Why is it you always write posts claiming preposterous underlying details about the other person’s POV such as shown in the above post? I’ve never said America would have a smaller piece of the global pie as the last developing nations grow into their economic power. What I’ve said is that our multinational American corporations have a choice to make on the score of whether they support AMERICAN JOBS or INTERNATIONAL JOBS or try to do a better job of supporting both. Of course there will be American economic tiers that will benefit enormously from the development of the third world, but that won’t benefit ALL AMERICANS.”

            That’s not actually what you said. Nevertheless you’re still wrong. There are always winners and losers as time marches on. An expanding global economy creates more opportunities for everyone with access to these growing markets. End of story. There is no downside to foreign economies growing unless they engage in illicit practices like China. Would you complain about California growing at the expense of Texas? Perhaps if all you care about is federal taxes you won’t.

            In any case, what I said still stands. We want emerging nations to grow and if multinationals move jobs from here to there and it makes them more successful they are still creating opportunities for everyone with similar access to these markets.

            And furthermore, if some foreign laborer can offer better productivity than an American, the American doesn’t deserve the job. He needs to improve his skills or look for other work.

          • Americana

            That is DARN CLOSE TO PRECISELY what I wrote previously. Don’t pretend it’s not close enough to be nearly identical. What, now I’ve got to copy and paste my own remarks because you’re going to make a pretense that I’m not honest about what I wrote? That’s sure illustrative of your posting ethics but not mine.

            Oh, so, this means that you don’t care a whit what happens in this country as far as jobs goes: (OFM) “In any case, what I said still stands. We want emerging nations to grow and if multinationals move jobs from here to there and it makes them more successful they are still creating opportunities for everyone with similar access to these markets.”

            Your last sentence says that U.S. multinationals are going to make money elsewhere which leaves this country and its employable millions of Americans exactly where in the scheme of things?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That is DARN CLOSE TO PRECISELY what I wrote previously. Don’t pretend it’s not close enough to be nearly identical. What, now I’ve got to copy and paste my own remarks because you’re going to make a pretense that I’m not honest about what I wrote? That’s sure illustrative of your posting ethics but not mine.”

            No, not really. You’re actually making the same flawed assumptions. Why would you worry about a threat to American workers if you didn’t consider it zero-sum?

            You’re just confused.

            “Your last sentence says that U.S. multinationals are going to make money elsewhere which leaves this country and its employable millions of Americans exactly where in the scheme of things?”

            If multinationals are hiring foreigners to work, that grows wages and they start buying more stuff. Assuming these workers are not located in protectionist nations they will be buying more imports and creating NEW jobs for Americans and others around the world. The more people that work, the more opportunities there are to sell stuff to these people.

            To put it very simply, what we need to worry about is how other nations behave rather than trying to fix F’ed up fascist sovereign that hurt our workers from abroad by further hurting the middle class here with some bullcrap wealth redistribution Ponzi schemes.

            I could explain it in more detail but you already waste quite a bit of my time with your unnecessarily combative attitude. Maybe if you learn to be a little more patient and to follow the relevant conversations you can learn more about these kinds of issues. Just be aware that some of your core values and assumptions are based on controversial worldviews.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for failing to read the situation in Israel, there again, you attribute far too much understanding to yourself.”

            You believe in the land for peace paradigm as an article of faith. That comes from materialistic POV and if you show “faith” in deterministic materialism in the context of a religious war it almost certainly comes from neo-Marxism. Especially considering all of the other things that you’ve said.

          • Americana

            Considering you can’t connect obvious dots, I’d hesitate, if I were you, to be forcibly connecting more subtle dots especially if you’ve got biases that make you wish to discredit my POV. I also wouldn’t leave out prior statements of mine about agreed on negotiating principles involved in the original Israeli-Palestinian division of land. There has always been an understanding the negotiations involve land for peace. That’s been true for all Israeli politicians, never mind for outsiders speaking about the situation.

            As for you and your CONSTANT CONFUSION and INJECTION of neo-Marxism into any and every conversation, would you please blow it out your ear? You and your blustering BS about the neo-Marxist role in the Middle East peace negotiations and your jingoistic phraseology of “deterministic dialectical materialism” can simply fade out of the picture. It’s IRRELEVANT, it’s CRAZED PROPAGANDA talk. Israel will not be allowed to maintain its manifest destiny on the basis of your crazy political injections of non-relevant political philosophies into the Israeli-Palestinian political drama.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not irrelevant when idiot consultants say you must do this or that because then the “freedom fighters” will make peace. Only a neo-Marxist would consider those morons “freedom fighters” rather than simply acknowledging that they are lying Islamic imperialists.

            And you repeat the neo-Marxist conclusions. What does that make you? Need I say it again?

          • Americana

            There are far more people than “neo-Marxists” involved in saying there must be a land deal that’s seals the Palestinian peace deal. First of all, that land division was implicit in the final granting of land to the nascent Israelis. The fact that the Arab world, at the instigation of the Palestinians and other Arab leaders, didn’t allow the peaceful diplomatic process to continue through to its logical conclusion at that time is part and parcel of the FORCED, OUTSIDER NATURE of the diplomatic decision by the British and the U.N. to grant specific land to Israel. The Palestinian “freedom fighters” are going to continue to be active within the Palestinian population until the majority of the Palestinians see that they can be accommodated on the land that they’ve been accorded. But to pretend you can continue to keep millions of Palestinians locked up inside their “country” because you’re too afraid to take the next logical steps toward peace and Palestinian statehood is a guarantee that peace will continue to elude Israel. The fact you’d even accuse anyone of neo-Marxism in order to obfuscate the issues involved is political histrionics taken to god knows where…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There are far more people than “neo-Marxists” involved in saying there must be a land deal that’s seals the Palestinian peace deal. First of all, that land division was implicit in the final granting of land to the nascent Israelis.”

            The Arabs DID get their land and those without sovereignty have proved beyond doubt that they do not deserve it.

            It’s not a matter of what Israel should be willing to give up. The question is how does it serve anyone’s interests other than jihadis? It doesn’t. Stop fighting on the side of jihad.

            “The fact you’d even accuse anyone of neo-Marxism in order to obfuscate the issues involved is political histrionics taken to god knows where…”

            You are like an idiotic atheist that denies Judeo Christian foundations of the West. You mock the very idea and you want to preserve your sense of being right by simply denying what you don’t want to investigate.

          • Americana

            Of course it’s “a matter of what Israel should be willing to give up”. If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be the constant discussion of whether to revert to the 1967 borders or not nor would there be such a propaganda campaign as that being waged by Caroline Glick w/her “The Israel Solution” book which claims all of Palestine for Israel because it would (supposedly and debatably) make it easier for Israel to militarily defend itself if that were all Israeli territory w/no nasty pockets of Palestinians inside Israel proper. The Palestinians were not even officially recognized as a state by the United Nations until a few years ago. If by your statement that “the Arabs did get their land,” you’re referring to Trans-Jordan, that was NEVER the entire final disposition of the Arabs within the region. There was always the remaining final hurdle of what to do w/the Palestinians, a final hurdle that was blocked both by the actions undertaken by the Arab bloc and by Israel’s concern over the threat posed by the Palestinians.

            What a cute segue to atheism!! Throwing me out of the Judeo-Christian homey crowd by saying “(I’m) like an idiotic atheist that denies the Judeo-Christian foundations of the West”. I’m aware of why you’re attempting to turn the conversation in this direction in your final sentences but given I’m a Roman Catholic, as usual your dialectical ploy is just that and nothing more.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s a legitimate parallel, moron. You’re as blind to Marxism as atheists are to Judeo Christian values in our society. If only you could possibly learn from the valid analog.

          • Americana

            It’s not a legitimate parallel at all. I’m not sure why you’re following this track other than you seem to feel that creating a monolithic enemy w/the most unpopular and scary components you can makes the enemy to be far more impressive and implacable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            There are no “monolithic” ideologies. True, Christianity has a rigid text. People can still coopt the ideas and even the texts. Ideologies that tolerate or even promote deception are even harder to pin down.

            You really are very stupid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Explain the “right to happiness” clause in the US Constitution. That will take us closer to an answer that YOU will understand.

          • Americana

            I’ve never employed the “right to happiness” clause in any argument. I’ve mentioned the health aspect of that sentence.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OK, then explain this “right to health” or whatever you think is relevant as you used it.

          • Americana

            Neo-Marxism has NOTHING to do w/the Middle East. You must be confusing the Middle East mess w/the NEO-CONS. Too many Neos to keep straight, OFM? Better re-read some history as well as current events sources and bring yourself up to speed w/the realities of the situation. Besides, since Israel’s prevailing security needs will effectively need to be observed into the foreseeable future, it’s stupid to pretend that keeping the Palestinians from having a country either serves to prevent further terrorism or doesn’t prevent further terrorism. It’s a wash between those. There certainly are Arab imperialists running rampant in Islam right now, but the Palestinians want their part of Palestine to themselves. They’re not going to roll over for the ISIL guys once they secure a country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Neo-Marxism has NOTHING to do w/the Middle East. You must be confusing the Middle East mess w/the NEO-CONS. Too many Neos to keep straight, OFM? Better re-read some history as well as current events sources and bring yourself up to speed w/the realities of the situation. ”

            It’s not apparent in any sense that you know what you’re talking about. Stick to counting beans.

            “Besides, since Israel’s prevailing security needs will effectively need to be observed into the foreseeable future, it’s stupid to pretend that keeping the Palestinians from having a country either serves to prevent further terrorism or doesn’t prevent further terrorism.”

            I fail to see how destroying the Nazis helped make Europe any more secure. See, anyone can play games like that. I fail to see what the threat was from the Nazis. We should have reached out to the moderates. But the fascists in the West insisted on war. It’s all you people think about.

            “There certainly are Arab imperialists running rampant in Islam right now, but the Palestinians want their part of Palestine to themselves. They’re not going to roll over for the ISIL guys once they secure a country.”

            I don’t think you understand how it works. It’s beyond question that those Palestinian morons have no problem with ISIS. The only people in the ME that have a problem with ISIS either reject sharia entirely or consider themselves rivals. The have no real moral objections to ISIS. They all agree that non-sharia sovereigns on the “Arab Peninsula” are totally unacceptable. And having Jews resisting sharia is like undoing history and pisses Allah off. This is the root of all their problems as far as they are concerned.

            I’m not speaking for everyone. But I am speaking for many in power and it’s easier to manipulate the masses with appeals to sharia than to secularism or anything else.

            If however you use Marxist paradigms for predicting human behavior you simply consider all religious people to be somewhat unpredictable but also easy to “moderate” by dealing with their material needs. You then arrest the few crazies once you’ve put a chicken in every pot and so forth. According to neo-Marxists there is very little difference between Islam and Christianity. Your calculations seem to make the same assumptions even if you say that you’re a Christian of some kind.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “According to neo-Marxists there is very little difference between Islam and Christianity”?

            Hmm, you could have fooled me that neo-Marxism bothers w/religion in significant terms at all. The way I see it, if the real claim is that there are only differences between atheists and theists, then it’s a bit more reasonable as a thought. Basically, religion is not material to economic systems other than as a philosophical driver.

            As for this sentence, I find this extremely hard to believe: (OFM) “I’m not speaking for everyone. But I am speaking for MANY IN POWER and it’s easier to manipulate the masses with appeals to sharia than to secularism or anything else.”

            The only part I question is that you’re “speaking for MANY IN POWER.” I wouldn’t question at all the idea that it’s “easer to manipulate the masses w/concerns about sharia.” I substituted the word “concerns” for your choice of “appeals” because “appeals” in the context of your sentence didn’t make sense to me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Hmm, you could have fooled me that neo-Marxism bothers w/religion in significant terms at all. ”

            People fool you all the time.

            Search:
            Critical theory religion
            or
            liberation theology

            I mean if you’re that oblivious you really need to start somewhere.

          • Americana

            Those are separate and distinct from neo-Marxism. If you’re that oblivious to individual fields, you really should understand that you can’t lump them all under the neo-Marxist umbrella just because neo-Marxism is an umbrella of different components from different fields.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What?

            You really are such an idiot. You think if you just rant on and on that you’ll “resist” being caught with your pants down.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Telling me I’m “a neo-Marxist that accepts neo-Marxist theories as common sense” when the truth is otherwise is simply your self-importance about being able to read between the lines.”

            Explain what you think neo-Marxism is.

          • Americana

            Hahahaha, follow you down your freakin’ rabbit hole when we’ve already gone there? Forget it. You are expected to mention neo-Marxism in every post otherwise you wouldn’t be struggling to inject neo-Marxism into your posts as frequently as you are. Neo-Marxism might be David Horowitz’s little brain worm but it’s not the brain worm that should dominate in every political conversation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Very poor bluff.

          • Americana

            I don’t bother bluffing. You sure do though…

          • Americana

            No, you explain it first. I don’t want you pulling an OFM debate tactic moment…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I gave you an URL already. I’ve explained it many times. How about you explain it first in your words and then I will pull from my comment history if that’s what you want. That way you won’t “worry” that I cheated you somehow.

            And in fact for every time you accuse me of changing on you anyone can make a liar out of you by searching my comment stream. So really…grow up.

          • Americana

            No, you grow up and try to outgrow your reliance on attributing everything to neo-Marxism. Half the time you’re relating something I see as being related to the neo-cons yet you never seem to mention them…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Idiot. I can justify everything I say about it. Your confusion is not evidence. Marxism is a worldview.

          • Americana

            Marxism is not everyone’s worldview just because they’re your intellectual opponent on any number of subjects. And you proclaiming them to be Marxists or neo-Marxists or Communists or any mash-ups of those philosophies doesn’t automatically increase your credibility except for a given audience.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I didn’t say anyone. I named you among others.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Again, I did not say everyone. Having you squirm around rather than accounting for your own approach to economics and alleged rights is beyond you so you try to pull out the rants like you’re a victim of McCarthyism. Poor you. How about you either square some of the things you claim or just admit that you don’t really have a comprehensive understanding of your own beliefs. Then people can decide on their own whether my analysis makes sense after reading what you write and the Critical Theory explanation from the URL or any other source of criticism of Marx.

            Weird how you don’t really criticize Marx. You just say you’re not a communist because you don’t believe in communism. This shows just how shallow your understanding actually is. It’s like saying you don’t believe in Oz but you can’t explain why you’re on the Yellow Brick Road.

            OK then. Denial works for some people. I guess we’re done then.

          • Americana

            What opportunities have you given me “to really criticize Marx”? I’m not going to simply parrot your statements on all subjects just because following your lead would be the path of least resistance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What opportunities have been denied to you to explain anything?

            You can’t even follow the conversations that don’t involve counting beans or parroting someone from your political camp and the “explanatory journalism.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There is some connection between some neo-cons and neo-Marxists. But neo is simply Latin for new. New conservatives can be just about anyone that moves to the right. Just about anyone on the political left is in the orbit of neo-Marxism one way or another.

            Denying it is like denying that post-Christian society is influenced by Christianity.

          • Americana

            You’ve given me URLs. I don’t believe you’ve explained neo-Marxism yourself in YOUR OWN WORDS or perhaps it’s that your explanation didn’t ring very true. At any rate, you haven’t given us all a dialectical analysis of what neo-Marxism is. You’ve merely made neo-Marxism out to be the boogeyman of Western civilization.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Search my comment stream. What does it matter if I again describe it in my own words? Neo-Marxism is the pro-Marx discourse created and promoted by Marxists that want to “explain” Marxism in contemporary terms and come up with criticism of the status quo based on Marxist assumptions about capital and historical materialism.

            ” You’ve merely made neo-Marxism out to be the boogeyman of Western civilization.”

            Translation: You’re confused and you blame me. So did you read the articles I gave you or not? I’m assuming not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Evidently you think neo-Marxism is something like a discrete set of books.

            Neo-Marxism is adapting on an ongoing basis the distinct way in which Marx distilled various ideas about “socialism,” technology, the status quo and his views of history.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact you assume you can dictate the point of the web site to me is highly indicative that you’re either something beyond a mere poster here or that you have protective inclinations toward the entire gamut of the missions of the site. ”

            Dictation of the facts is something you object to? OK. Why don’t you ask Horowitz what the blog is all about. Don’t take my word for it. Like I care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…you don’t have the power to dictate anything to me.”

            dic·tate

            verb

            ˈdikˌtāt,ˌdikˈtāt/

            1. lay down authoritatively; prescribe.

            “the tsar’s attempts to dictate policy”

            synonyms:give orders to, order around/about, lord it over; More

            2. say or read aloud (words to be typed, written down, or recorded on tape).

            “I have four letters to dictate”

            noun

            1. an order or principle that must be obeyed.

            I’m a very powerful “dictator” as I promote Constitutional liberty and values.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As for your typical parting shot, I don’t believe I was the one who initiated the sidewinder missiles about the Benghazi tragedy though, it’s true, I did participate in the Benghazi follow ups because I don’t like gang-ups of issues. Benghazi was roped into the discussion by someone like yourself who was hoping to tie up a large Xmas package of failure after failure after failure under the main complaint of the blog which was about amnesty and attribute them all to Pres. Obama’s incompetence or executive overreach or whatever.”

            Just use the freaking lasers and get it over with.

            Neo-Marxism and “social justice” demands are at the center of, or implied in, every discussion on every Horowitz blog.

          • Americana

            I’m not “making crap up”. Tankers have to be fueled and in the air ready to top up the tanks of F-16s. That requires advance planning so that the tankers are FUELED and WITHIN RANGE of the FLIGHT PATH of their intended aircraft. We’re no longer keeping tankers airborne 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It’s not like during the Cold War when B-52 bombers were in the air needing refueling all the time and so tankers were up there as well. Nowadays, that’s not the case. Tankers are mission-specific just like other aircraft and aren’t just hanging around in the skies waiting for planes to stop by for re-fueling.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 3 hours ago: “I’m not “making crap up”. Tankers have to be fueled and in the air ready to top up the tanks of F-16s.”

            The logic of your statement seems to imply that if tankers need to be fueled and in the air etc. that you can’t be making anything up at all.

            The thing is that you are making a lot of crap up.

          • Americana

            If I’m making crap up, you should be able to point to precisely the suspect crap in all my posts. I’m not making crap up when I post information from manufacturers of planes or from Defense Dept. web sites. Instead, what we have is YOU CLAIMING I’M making crap up w/no crap identified so that I can contest that label of it’s being crap. Crap is not just in the eye of the beholder if it’s FACT-BASED, INCONTESTABLE CRAP.

            If you’d realized the implication that there must be more foresight in saying you’d need tankers for re-fueling and that those tankers had to be in the air and within reach of the flight path of the F-16s then I might believe you’d recognize the significance of this aspect of the man’s strategic plan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you’d realized the implication that there must be more foresight in saying you’d need tankers for re-fueling and that those tankers had to be in the air and within reach of the flight path of the F-16s then I might believe you’d recognize the significance of this aspect of the man’s strategic plan.”

            Another straw man blown away with tactical nukes! BOOM!

          • Americana

            What is crap in those sentences? You don’t just quote someone in an instance where you’re claiming their facts are wrong. You point out where the facts are wrong. If there weren’t tankers that were already fueled and in the air then the tankers were in the same boat that the F-16s were, i.e., they were NOT READY for the expeditious EMERGENCY DEPLOYMENT required by the extremely tight timeframe of what transpired in Benghazi. From the first shots being fired to the consular facility being overrun was UNDER TWO HOURS.

            Aside from the fact that F-16s weren’t the RIGHT TOOL for the job at hand, it doesn’t seem that the requirements for the dispatching of planes or helicopters or drones (that these were in ARMED, FUELED and in MISSION-READY MODE and were within TIMELY STRIKING DISTANCE) were met in order to get them there in time to execute any military mission.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Tankers would not be required for the trip down though it would have been ideal. Stop the straw man bullcrap.

            “Aside from the fact that F-16s weren’t the RIGHT TOOL for the job at hand, it doesn’t seem that the requirements for the dispatching of planes or helicopters or drones (that these were in ARMED, FUELED and in MISSION-READY MODE and were within TIMELY STRIKING DISTANCE) were met in order to get them there in time to execute any military mission.”

            No sheet, dipshirt. That’s why “insane nationalists” like me a are pissed. We think if you’re not going to defend America’s interests at least communicate your f-ed up strategy more clearly to the public.

            All you communist apologists pretend like Libya is just some random far off place that was subjected to random “workplace violence.”

            We had just taken out Libya’s longstanding and relatively stable sovereign in favor of jihadis. We broke it. We’re responsible to a large extent for security there.

            How stupid can you morons continue to be? Why all the phony confusion and exasperation like you’re the victim of something? You’re defending the idiots that broke it all.

          • Americana

            Why, yes, I guess I do want to quibble and quote someone else:

            Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12,Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I never said that there are not competing views. In fact that’s my point. Just as there are “competing views” about socialized medicine, this administration and others want to respond with “LOL” when people criticize their approach.

            So stop lying and acting like the “happiness clause” means private property rights are “LOL” and that there are not people that mind if we stand down a bit to be “better prepared” for the future of a “leaner America.”

            Because (paraphrasing the idiot savants like you) “the third world is going to take our wealth and stuff and we need to be realistic so we just can’t defend America’s interests with the same vigor that Constitutional patriots are demanding.”

            If you you want to fight against American hegemony, do it from a political organization that does not require you to swear an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution.

          • Americana

            Would you please stop conflating literally every single political bone you want to pick into this one discussion? You’ve veered from one point to the next only to then meld them all into another post as one monster rationale and it’s simply crazy trying to follow you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            People are not interested in your rants. I’m not interested in your views. I want you to either try to contribute productively or go away. You are a nuisance. You are the reason that people get blocked. You are a troublemaker. There is only one person that cares about what you say because generally you approach from the same POV. If you’d try to learn more from him and learn your limits then it wouldn’t be so bad.

            But I now totally understand why people complain about you. Take your bullshit to your own blog or where people are interested in your views. You’re not persuasive and you’ve been outed as a complete bullshitter.

          • Americana

            Oh, blow me. You’re not interested in hearing my perspective? Well, I sure the heck am not interested in hearing your rude, crude and endlessly repetitive slurs directed at me w/one sentence out of 8 in any one post that has any bearing on the actual discussion.

            I’m responsible for people getting blocked??? Tell me who’s been kicked off this BB for arguing w/me or take your lie and stick it in your ear. that’s pretty funny that you’d be starting to make that claim as well as make the claim that you’re running into moderator issues when it’s patently clear that you’re not. There are readily identifiable events surrounding moderator issues that haven’t occurred w/your posts whereas they have occurred w/mine. I’m calling BS on all your so-called bannings and Mod Squad issues. This is likely a preamble to something else entirely on your part.

            If you don’t like having any diversity in the opinions and knowledge that’s shared on this web site, then take your BS and blow this populist pop stand. I’m fine w/being on an open discussion platform and taking my knocks; obviously, you AREN’T. Your whole schtick is sitting around BSing w/people who sidle up to you and wink, wink, nudge, nudge w/the very same phrasing. As for only having ONE PERSON who values what I have to say, if you are referring to hieronymous, I’m pleased to acknowledge any intellectual appreciation we have for each other’s posts. I’m not sure where your possessiveness arises from but if you don’t outright own this web site or have real proprietary interests in it then you’re out of line w/telling people to eff off into the sunset.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s a fact that 2+2 = 4. That never changed. But pointing that out is not always relevant to every discussion. Pointing out that you’re a bullshitter is always relevant when you keep pushing your own views over and over again integrate the equivalent of a few similarly simple math or other equations.

          • Americana

            You push your own (fanciful at best) views without any regard to accuracy or reality. You don’t even tolerate the correction of your mistaken views even when they’re seconded by someone like hieronymous w/even more convincing technical details that further build my case. I don’t bother pointing out that you’re a bullish*tter because I’d rather that be clear from my pointing out technical facts. It’s certainly been true for this whole F-16 business and the CAS A-10 business, hasn’t it? Yet there where I contributed SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION than you did, you still panned my posts. You’ve got insoluble political issues but they go waaaayy above and beyond me. Thankfully, you are not the person in charge of FPM so, thankfully, freedom of speech will remain free and unhindered by partisanship of the kind you demonstrate every post.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t even tolerate the correction of your mistaken views even when they’re seconded by someone like hieronymous w/even more convincing technical details that further build my case.”

            I am not mistaken. I was not corrected by anyone. Some others are able to share their views with less hyperbole and if they disagree or fail to see my point it’s still OK. That’s about all that happened. The conversation was quite a bit calmer so people can read and decide on their own what to think. I”m fine with that. That’s why I would not consider him a spammer. I think he’s a slightly hostile interlocutor some times but that’s OK. He went over the line a few times but that’s life. He adjusts.

            You are just trouble because you’re only borderline sane.

            “Yet there where I contributed SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION than you did, you still panned my posts.”

            The problem is that you assume your technical information is relevant to the conversation when usually it’s not dealing with the point at hand. It’s not like someone suggested using F16s because they can travel at mach 7 and use their magic lasers. You did not rectify any “confusion.”

            You’re just a spammer ranting about this and that and insisting anyone that wants to scrutinize what happened more carefully as “conspiracy theorist.” Well guess what? Some a-hole communist like you is sitting in the White House.

            That’s the “conspiracy” theory. You’re too stupid to even understand what makes you a communist. 0′Bama’s economic savvy is probably no better than yours. He’s never made an honest days wage in his life as far as I know and he has whacky theories about wealth creation and social justice just like you. You’re both communists. Marx would consider you both communists.

            I suggest you peddle it somewhere else or at least work on creating a more credible style of interacting with the non-communists and especially the anti-communists like me.

          • Americana

            Ah, the technical information and arguments I make “usually is not dealing w/the point at hand”. Au contraire, I’d say that what you find most infuriating about my posts is that my questions and insights are ALWAYS relevant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Good thing you straightened me out after I mistakenly calculated Mach one as equaling the speed of light in a vacuum. Mach one is obviously the speed of something else like the fastest Ferrari or something. I should not trust Luke Skywalker for my info on military jet capabilities. Thanks so much for pointing out that a cannon is NOT loaded with 500ish AGM65 missiles.

            All of this confusion and the bean counter saved the day to bust up the conspiracy theories! Because the entire theory hung on F16s showing up at lightspeed (powered by solar energy panels) and blowing the jihadis away with AGMs and laser beams. Preferably just laser beams because that would be THE COOLEST!

            And pointing out that A10s have bigger cannons is ALWAYS relevant to destroying any straw man that you might have created along the way. Just because!!! Your stats just ripped through the straw man like a 30mm cannon round! Boom!

          • Americana

            It’s a little late in the game for you to pretend to wittiness. Besides, wittiness has exactly nothing to do w/proving the technical suitability of a CAS A-10 jet to the job at hand in Benghazi.

            I’d say your intellectual payload has blown up in your cargo hold at this point in time in this particular Benghazi thread but that’s just me being witty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But you’re not witty. People only laugh at you because you’re a retarded communist.

          • Americana

            Nah, those folks just have retarded reaction times…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What does reaction time have to do with anything? Is that some kind of “brilliant” pun?

          • Americana

            Obviously, you’re not a Robin Wiliams fan…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Well, Robin Williams…I respect his talent. I just don’t have enough interest to watch many of his films. So whatever you’re referring to went completely over my head.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s certainly been true for this whole F-16 business and the CAS A-10 business, hasn’t it? Yet there where I contributed SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TECHNICAL INFORMATION than you did, you still panned my posts.”

            Actually your summary was what a bean counter would come up with. You did not distill in simple terms why the A10s design is more suited and why it was not an option in Benghazi. I’m sure with more time you could have but I was looking for your communication style and ability to make it relevant.

            Pointing out the A10 wing or something like that in contrast with the inherently less stable (at low speed) F16 design or whatever. It’s not just looking up statistics. It’s noting relevant facts and applying them. Running off a bunch of statistics doesn’t show that the F16 was not suitable. It shows that we have other hardware more suitable. But we already stipulated to that so you make up fake controversy to then announce yourself as expert to correct everyone. 2 + 2 = 4 gosh darn it! Why don’t you realize that? Why did I have to tell you!!?

            And the most relevant facts all show that we have a large assortment of planes for a large assortment of tasks BUT they are also a lot more flexible than you are willing to admit. Some time bean counters can’t grasp this concept at all.

            In any case it’s just another straw man because the point is that whether the F16 is or isn’t ideal or was judged not worth deploying it still loves us with the implication that you and others think the most appropriate response is to sit around and see what happens. So that’s a problem for a lot of people and it leads to legitimate political questions that you can’t distract us from. That makes you angry and you double down again and again. And here we are.

          • Americana

            Why should my statements override what a military web site would say about a particular plane? I can certainly write up something that a bean counter would write and you’d contest that because “it’s what a bean counter would write”. However, NONE of these jets you’ve mentioned were ideal to produce the effect you wished for in Benghazi which was to stop the jihadis from successfully completing their attack on the consular compound. The jihadis had breached the compound’s walls and were fighting within the compound by the time ANY PLAN OF WHATEVER MAKE and MODEL AVAILABLE would have gotten to the battlefield.

            Oh oh, I’m not able to decipher the meaning of this sentence. Earth to OFM, Earth to OFM, translator unit on: (OFM) “…In any case it’s just another straw man because the point is that whether the F16 is or isn’t ideal or was judged not worth deploying it still loves(sic) (I’m presuming you meant ‘LEAVES’) us with the implication that you and others think the most appropriate response is to sit around and see what happens.”

            Sure, that’s your takeaway because you think that denigrates us as human beings and military strategists. However, that’s not my point at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “However, NONE of these jets you’ve mentioned were ideal to produce the effect you wished for in Benghazi which was to stop the jihadis from successfully completing their attack on the consular compound.”

            Thank you for proving that war is heck! We should just get rid of all this military junk. It’s cool but jeez, you either can’t get anything useful done and if you DO accidentally kill a bad guy it will only help their recruiting and cause

            ——–>>>>>B L O W B A C K!!!!

            War is for dummies!!!

          • Americana

            You don’t like people researching factual material, fine. You provide factual material that rebuts what me or someone else digs up. Otherwise, I’m quite content w/posting technical material I find that describes what an A-10 CAS jet can do as far as assisting ground troops. I’m also content w/us mulling over the scenario that hieronymous mentioned which is that if you’d had an F-16 or A-10 strafe and bomb around the consular compound killing a fair number of civilians as well as decimating American CIA agents in-country, we would then be opening ourselves up to another whole class of conflict. We then potentially become persona non grata viz stationing our diplomatic missions anywhere in the Middle East in inner city locations. Now, there might be a rationale for NOT stationing our diplomats in inner city facilities but unless and until we design and pay for entirely new diplomatic facilities that are purpose-built for maximum defensibility, we’re facing similar possible disaster in many different locations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 2 hours ago: “You don’t like people researching factual material, fine.”

            Obviously missing the point again. My son at age 15 could have done a lot better than you did and very little of it was actually dealing directly with what we are discussing.

            “Otherwise, I’m quite content w/posting technical material I find that describes what an A-10 CAS jet can do as far as assisting ground troops.”

            How in the world could you possibly think that’s a controversial statement? Why are you still throwing up chaff?

            “I’m also content w/us mulling over the scenario that hieronymous mentioned which is that if you’d had an F-16 or A-10 strafe and bomb around the consular compound killing a fair number of civilians as well as decimating American CIA agents in-country, we would then be opening ourselves up to another whole class of conflict.”

            You two simply have very different risk to reward formulas than “jingoistic neo-Nazis” like me. Frankly, it’s why I keep reminding you that neither of you believe America is any big deal in contrast with patriots that love the US Consitution as a unique social contract unlike any other in human history.

            America is I assume your home and you love it the way you expect Libyans to love their home but you don’t have the sense that American hegemony is a good thing for the world rather than just for selfish Americans. You think like the neo-Marxist president and therefore you’re very supportive of just about everything he causes.

          • Americana

            If that’s the case, then have your son substitute pitch for you occasionally. It’d be interesting to see what runs in the family.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            He would not take you seriously either.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are plenty of people that I disagree with that manage to have productive conversations. You just don’t notice. Not that I’d expect you to.

            If you want to waste the time of others, carry on. I’m simply saying that I totally understand why anyone would consider you a spammer. Furthermore, I am sorry to anyone that considers me a spammer for giving you someone to reply to.

          • Americana

            What a great double whammy post, you seemingly indict both of us at once and make yourself out to be a fall guy for the sake of the FPM crowd. You even graciously title yourself a spammer for replying to my posts. Oh, the drama! ;)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fall guy? I’m simply pointing out that I am also subject to judgment from others. They can report me for the same reasons they might want to report you.

          • Americana

            I am “contributing productively” even if it’s not within your capacity to understand that I’m doing so. When I post my thinking, I subject my posts to the very same risk of being dissected and found wanting by hieronymous as does anyone else who posts. hieronymous doesn’t spare anyone when he finds their posts lacking in thoughtfulness and total sequencing and connections between the cause and effect of events from beginning to end. I’m quite happy to have you say that only hieronymous sees value in my posts. He’s a worthwhile fellow poster to have be interested in following one’s posts.

            I’m not a “troublemaker” just because I poke holes in your conspiracy thinking and your fanciful theories. If you thought more deeply on such things as what all is involved w/the refueling of F-16s on their way to Benghazi instead of seizing on the first mention of the concept without thinking it through, I wouldn’t be able to come along two minutes later and bring up the whole issue of the refueling tankers having to have been notified previously of being needed for a refueling mission.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not a “troublemaker” just because I poke holes in your conspiracy thinking and your fanciful theories.”

            Wrong again. And you’re still insane.

          • Americana

            Ah, then why not take the time to poke holes in the “insane comments” in my post rather than attempt to label me as “insane”? You can’t because that would indicate that your whole previous post was full of cr*ptastic illogical reasoning. Refueling is only possible if there are refueling tankers in the air in the flight path of the jets requiring refueling.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s easier to point out that you’re insane. Believe it or not you’re far easier to read than you can apparently imagine.

            “Refueling is only possible if there are refueling tankers in the air in the flight path of the jets requiring refueling.”

            Wait. So…refueling in the air requires some other object up there? What about solar panels? The Air Force is not using zero carbon footprint jets? WTF?

            Dang I learned a lot from you. Who’da thunk a communist could provide such valuable insight.

          • Americana

            What is “insane” about pointing out that tankers have to be fueled and in the air in order to be refueling F-16s for this Benghazi mission? If they don’t have F-16s fueled, armed and ready to be dispatched and the same is true for the tankers, then the Benghazi mission was a NO-GO. That’s not insane, that’s just the

          • Americana

            I am “contributing productively” even if it’s not within your capacity to understand that I’m doing so. When I post my thinking, I subject my posts to the very same risk of being dissected and found wanting by hieronymous as does anyone else who posts. hieronymous doesn’t spare anyone when he finds their posts lacking in thoughtfulness and total sequencing and connections between the cause and effect of events from beginning to end. I’m quite happy to have you say that only hieronymous sees value in my posts. He’s a worthwhile fellow poster to have be interested in following one’s posts.

            I’m not a “troublemaker” just because I poke holes in your conspiracy thinking and your fanciful theories. If you thought more deeply on such things as what all is involved w/the refueling of F-16s on their way to Benghazi instead of seizing on the first mention of the concept without thinking it through, I wouldn’t be able to come along two minutes later and bring up the whole issue of the refueling tankers having to have been notified previously of being needed for a refueling mission.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I am “contributing productively” even if it’s not within your capacity to understand that I’m doing so.”

            Yes. Only sophisticated communists know that everything you say is like from the mouth of God or the super smartiest scientist ever.

          • Americana

            You don’t need to be the super smartest Communist ever to realize that you can’t get TWO F-16s from A (Aviano, Italy) to B (Benghazi, Libya) without refueling tankers that are already up in the air w/fuel in **their tanks.** But I’d expect that the super dumbest political peep — whatever their poli-sci stripe — would realize that No Tankers = No Fuel.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Solar power! Or windmills!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I subject my posts to the very same risk of being dissected and found wanting by hieronymous as does anyone else who posts. hieronymous doesn’t spare anyone when he finds their posts lacking in thoughtfulness and total sequencing and connections between the cause and effect of events from beginning to end. I’m quite happy to have you say that only hieronymous sees value in my posts.”

            Thanks for the belly laugh.

          • Americana

            Please tell me that your belly jiggled. ‘Tis the season and all…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re free to imagine anything you’d like.

            IT”S A FREE COUNTRY! But not for long because free people f-up social justice! Or hadn’t you noticed? I know you did. Don’t lie.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s not conflation to draw diverse examples that illustrate why you’re not credible.

            I don’t expect that you can follow much. In fact that’s kind of my point.

          • Americana

            If you were the great thinker you’re claiming, you wouldn’t post material that is so easily punctured and proven to be all hot air.

          • Americana

            Ah, no, that is NOT ALL THAT WAS SAID about the use of F-16s as a tactical possibility, here’s Sec. of Defense Robert Gates trashing Gregory Hicks’ F-16 to-the-rescue scenario:

            Former defense secretary Robert Gates delivered perhaps the most persuasive rebuttal to this myth. On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on May 12, Gates said he probably would have made the same decisions. He also said Hicks’s notion that flying a fighter jet over the attackers might have dispersed them reflected “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities,” ignoring the “number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader Moammar] Gaddafi’s arsenals.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Hicks versus Handley. That would make an interesting debate.

            But you stick with the Marxist narratives because that’s exactly what we expect from you. Keep spinning.

            Hicks thinks that Handley is delusional. OK then. Hicks should know better I guess. According to you. Because it fits your narratives.

            I wonder if Gates or Hicks is possibly worried about their future employment under a Clinton administration. There’s lying and there’s spin. They’re spinning.

            I trust Handley more than I trust any political operatives.

          • Americana

            Gregory Hicks is a non-starter as far as his opinion having any credibility. Hicks is not a military man. Since Sec. of Defense Gates would merely have returned to another form of service, it doesn’t really matter whether Mr. Gates functioned as part of the Obama administration’s machine or not. He had easily transferrable skills that would have earned him a seat pretty much anywhere in the military-industrial complex or the major think tanks that are just about everywhere. I don’t trust pilots to have a feeling for anything other than flying their machine. Handley is beyond his depth. He might be patriotic, he’s also not a thinking man.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gates is not going to openly dump on his leader. He already has come out with controversial positions. Furthermore, even if he hates 0′Bama his criticism hits others too.

            And certainly it’s questionable whether we should air our dirty laundry at all. But we have no choice a lot of the times. We have to think carefully first what we want our enemies to see. This goes for the government as well as for patriots.

            “Handley is beyond his depth. He might be patriotic, he’s also not a thinking man.”

            Just shut up already. Handley knows that the “happiness” clause means and he fought to defend our Constitution.

          • Americana

            If Sec. of Defense Gates has “already come out w/controversial positions”, what’s one more controversial opinion? Especially if you believe you’re right and you can sell the nature of your opinion about the situation in Benghazi to the next military contractor or the next President? No, as far as I can tell everything Sec. Gates has said is consonant w/the reasons underlying the Benghazi tragedy. What Mr. Gates has said is not consonant w/there being underlying conspiracy theories that have any standing.

            Oh, now your claim is that we’re hiding our dirty laundry from the enemy? I’m pretty sure the enemy could have figured out why they succeeded in Benghazi even without umpteen Congressional hearings.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            There are no uncontroversial positions when it comes to military issues, economics and so forth.

            If you think we have all of the answers WRT Benghazi, you’re insane. We have polished, official answers and a few dissenters are hounded by a-hole communists like you as well as others that simply feel it’s “realistic” to manage our resources with the idea that shrinking our (American) power is inevitable. It’s not. At all.

            And that is why worldview mattes. An idiot like you that thinks we lose in America just because developing nations start producing more stuff will naturally think that it’s just inevitable for example that we can’t launch fighter jets to respond to events like we’re discussing. For you it’s just “common sense” to make these adjustments for the exact same reasons that it’s “common sense” to think that having a guy in Thailand start to sell high-end whatchamacallits is just taking money and resources from American taxpayers and therefore we must make all of these adjustments (shrinking our capabilities for strategic reasons) especially since the happiness clause of the US Constitution practically demands that we create socialized medicine to bring on the promised Utopian America.

            This is an issue with different world-views and you won’t allow that your worldview is delusional or inferior. You think your delusional worldview is the only “realistic” view.

          • Americana

            (OFM) “F16s could have arrived in ~2 hours. Handley figured closer to 3.”

            The American consular compound had breached walls soon after the assault began and Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith were dead in TWO HOURS. Tell me, how does having F-16s arriving in (close) to 3 hours serve ANY SUCCESSFUL TACTICAL PURPOSE to prevent those American deaths?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I didn’t say every death could be prevented.

          • Americana

            There you go, ignoring the fact those F-16s wouldn’t have arrived in TIME by veering off and writing (OFM) “I didn’t say every death could be prevented”. Arrival time of 4-6 hours wouldn’t have DONE ANYTHING to minimize the assault on the consular compound.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            Any support from the air would have help shape events and “show the flag” in terms of creating some measure deterrence for future attacks against us. Not showing up signals “local crime story” and “it’s a police matter.”

            What you can’t face is the fact that there are people in America that want to shrink our hegemony for idealogical reasons. These same people want to continue agitating for easing welfare standards, driving minimum wage laws upward and so forth all consistent with their global views of “social justice.”

            That’s where the controversies lie and as a robotic communist dupe you can only throw up chaff to distract from these salient discussions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana -> Phil Handley an hour ago:

            “There you go, ignoring the fact those F-16s wouldn’t have arrived in TIME…”

            http://goefoundation.Org/index.php/eagles/biographies/h/handley-phil-hands/
            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/2013/colonel-phil-handley/betrayal-in-benghazi/

          • Americana

            NO F-16s were FUELED AND ARMED AND READY ON THE TARMAC to be sent on a mission to Benghazi. The flight time might be minimal when doing Mach whatever, but getting the F-16s into the air is what’s time consuming. The F-16s were always a non-starter because they weren’t in mission-ready status.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And what fighter / interceptor jets >werefeels< like people should not challenge you – but you're wrong.

          • Americana

            Listen, dhimmi, no one is suggesting that you’re not entitled to keep on plugging away for answers and solutions to future such tragic events. Trouble is, everyone is pretty tired of countering the witch hunt mumbo jumbo of such infamous non-starters as using F-16s as a deterrent or as an actual combat jet in an urban environment. As for me having a personal stake in the outcome of ANY specific hearings, I’m not the person whose career is on the line for having failed at this one mission-critical event. Trouble is, it’s very, very obvious that there is more than enough blame to be divvied up among ALL AFFECTED PARTICIPANTS including Ambassador Stevens. My personal recommendations as to how we continue to manage our diplomatic corps from here on out until we’ve managed to eliminate the jihadist threat is too complex to go into here. Suffice to say, I’m a lot more comfortable w/my recommendations and vision vs what your vision seems to be.

          • hiernonymous

            ” 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.”

            Woods, Doherty, and their team took their casualties from mortar rounds. Granting the highly questionable assumption that a couple of fast-movers making a pass or three would disperse an attacking mob, that still doesn’t address the only form of attack that actually inflicted casualties on that team.

            Fast-movers need targeting data. Doherty, et al, weren’t traveling with a TAB, they didn’t have recon assets in place out in the city, there was no ISR asset in place that could have provided the precision targeting necessary to take out a mortar or a battery of them. Even if there had been, the probability that a couple of F-16s could have successfully done more than made the mortar teams duck or displace is vanishingly small.

            Do you remember asking someone (Americana, I believe) about their expertise in the medical and business fields, and why you did so?

          • Americana

            Funny you found this thread when I’d very nearly decided to ask you to weigh in on this thread after receiving this little throw down wisecrack from OFM, hieronymous:

            objectivefactsmatter >>> Americana 13 hours ago

            Dumbass,

            Get your Greek friend to help you talk to people here. At least he can usually figure out the conversations. And he’s your buddy so he’s the perfect mediator.

            OK? So go and get some green tea and make an appointment with your doctor. Then if you really think there is more anyone has to say to you or you to them, ask your buddy for help articulating what it is that you want to get across. MK?

            Good luck.

            _____________________________________________________________________

            If you didn’t follow the full thrust of his commentary it’s that the U.S. military is VERY FLEXIBLE in its worldwide ability TO REDEPLOY ITSELF (as if the U.S. can do this solely AT OUR DISCRETION!!!) at our former scale prior to Sec. of Def. Rumsfeld adopting the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Would you also care to address that aspect of OFM’s recent commentary? Between all the SOFAs that would be required to be renegotiated and all the additional troops that would need to be hired and trained, I don’t see that happening ASAP under any new POTUS unless WW III were declared. Thank you for keeping abreast of at least some of this conversation between OFM and myself. Do you mind if I ask you to weigh in more frequently when his commentary becomes too virulent and illogical for me to rebut it? Since he brought up the possibility himself of me getting you involved because he obviously regards you as preferable to me, I’d just as soon hand you the baton or the conversational cudgel. ;)

          • hiernonymous

            I haven’t followed closely enough to have seen the original comment/exchange on flexibility or deployment. Can you link to what’s in dispute?

            As a probably unrelated tangent, since you bring up Rumsfeld, I’ve always questioned the wisdom of trying to apply business-model-style efficiencies to the business of war, which I felt Rumsfeld was trying to do. At a certain level, efficiency is actually a bad thing. The perfectly efficient organization is one in which each member is doing something unique: there is no redundancy, no wasted effort, no resources being expended that don’t need to be and no resources sitting around. The problem with this approach to things is that every element in a perfectly efficient organization becomes very important, and thus a vulnerability.

            That sort of approach arguably works well in an asymmetric environment where we so outmatch our opponents that our elements are not really threatened; it allows us to apply force selectively and with minimal waste. But I worry that when we find ourselves in a fight with a peer or near-peer competitor, we’re going to discover that we are very brittle and unable to compensate for setbacks.

            None of which was probably germane to your conversation…

            “Do you mind if I ask you to weigh in more frequently when his commentary becomes too virulent and illogical for me to rebut it?”

            Well, you can ask, but I’m spending about all the time on here that I plan to :) I’m always willing to explain as best I can those matters I know something about.

          • Cajun Exile

            Rumsfeld is quite an interesting and controversial character as Secretary of Defense. Your second paragraph reflects this quite well. Did Rumsfeld nearly break the US military or did he nearly transform it?

            Rumsfeld’s closest historical analog is Robert McNamara. McNamara was a successful, business centric technocrat with a remarkably similar management style to Rumsfeld and an almost identical iconoclastic, transformational mission. At odd times I have wondered what would be the result if the two swapped places in history. Would one fair better than the other if roles were reversed?

            I think Rumsfeld would have suffered the same fate as McNamara in the Kennedy/Johnson Administrations. But I suspect McNamara would have fared better than Rumsfeld in the Bush Administration as McNamara would have had more latitude.

            Some day, decades from now with far more historical perspective than we have now, some bright post-grad will write a very illuminating thesis on the subject of Rumsfeld and McNamara.

            For now it remains the idle musings of a rainy December afternoon…

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, I’ve considered the McNamara comparison before, but I’ve never thought about how they might have done in one another’s shoes. Interesting idea! Rumsfeld came to the job with more experience, both of government in general and of many of the personalities involved.

          • Cajun Exile

            There has been the odd commentary on the subject of comparing McNamara and Rumsfeld but none of it very good. I look forward to living long enough to see something well written on the subject.

          • Americana

            Yes, me too. Expanding time spent here simply to rebut ever expanding bullpuckey from certain individuals is just not on.

            Actually, in order to find the portion of the conversation to which I’m referring simply read on from the point of your last comment to me. The relevant portion of the conversation appears almost immediately after your last comment to me on this thread. I don’t see us ever being able to counter terrorism to the level it must be countered. It’s always easiesr to be the one inflicting asymmetrical damage than to be the one trying to attain and maintain total peace.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think you’re dealing with another straw man. The idea is not that we’re critical of the president because we think the military is magic and can save lives if only we want to.

            The issue is that our response was tepid. That means >maybe< we could have saved lives but even if not that it would have provided the ongoing deterrence that we expect as part of the mission of the military.

            That's my expectation and I don't think you've addressed that. I don't see how you can look afterwards and imply that maybe some people are delusional about just precisely how they could have shaped outcomes differently.

            The point is that we seem to want to change our entire military posture to something like what they're also trying to do to police forces. You can't say "we need to demilitarize the military." But in my view they want to dramatically change its posture and deliberately shrink hegemony.

            You don't even disagree with most of what I said. You simply think it's OK to shrink our hegemony and make less effort in thinking about deterrence. You have different opinions and that's OK. Don't pretend those opinions are driven be superior mastery of some kind of complex analysis. In the end I think that you're myopic about what drives conflict. You understand some of it but you certainly don't understand jihad or every aspect of ideological wars that turn violent.

            The issue is that you and many others want American hegemony to dissipate. Why deny it now? Why the games?

            Why not just try being more honest about the fact that we can't save every life, we can't devote as much money as we'd like, we should worry about making our enemies hate us ("blowback") and so forth? I disagree with you still (without denying that these are all issues to consider) l but at least you will be seen as a lot more honest and forthcoming about why there are disagreements here. And maybe some of the conversations will be more productive if you try that.

            I think Benghazi was handled like a police matter but at the same time they had to have some military response. This is what we got. That's the most benign "conspiracy theory" that I can think of. Are there other things being shielded from view of the public? I don't know.

            I don't trust politicians and those that have radical views about the USA are not trusted at all. This is a republic. I'd like answers and I'm willing to wait for the processes to unfold.

          • hiernonymous

            No, my response to your F-16 point has absolutely nothing to do with larger issues of hegemonic ambitions, etc. On a tactical level, the response you are describing would have been useless. There is no point in saying that ‘they’ could or should have scrambled a pair of F-16s to Libya when there was no reasonable military purpose they could have served.

            As for ‘sending a message’ or some such, my disagreement with you has nothing to do with wanting to reduce a militaristic profile or whatever you imagine my leanings to be, and more to do with the fact that impotent flailing is recognized as such, and would have embarrassed us rather than impressing anyone. Flying fast movers over Benghazi would simply have drawn attention to the fact that, for all our vaunted technology and power – both of which are very real – there are times and situations that it does not avail, and highlighting that fact with an empty pass over a city would have been counterproductive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, my response to your F-16 point has absolutely nothing to do with larger issues of hegemonic ambitions, etc. On a tactical level, the response you are describing would have been useless.”

            Useless? Tell me specifically how you disagree with Handley.

            “Flying fast movers over Benghazi would simply have drawn attention to the fact that, for all our vaunted technology and power – both of which are very real – there are times and situations that it does not avail, and highlighting that fact with an empty pass over a city would have been counterproductive.”

            The later they arrive the greater that concern becomes. If they were scrambled as Handley suggested they could have adjusted as the situation unfolded. Pretending that we are looking at events that unfolded as prophesied is not an honest way to run postop analysis.

            It’s not that I fail to understand the spin, I just think it’s ultimately dishonest or unbalanced at best. This is why I question our leadership rather than our actual capabilities. And it’s hard not to notice that your analysis happens to line up with your views of American hegemony.

            Why can’t you just admit that this administration has very different views from “Orwellian” nationalists like me? Obviously this guy is a lot less concerned about jihad, AQ and the so-called “JV” teams and so forth. Why not just express your views more honestly so that the conversations can move on more quickly? Why do you have to pretend that my views are not just different and more “nationalistic” but you feel you must help support the view that “nationalists” are “unrealistic” as well?

            Are you internally conflicted? Whether or not you’re willing to admit it I think that you are.

          • hiernonymous

            “Tell me specifically how you disagree with Handley.”

            That’s hard to do, because Handley never really specifically says what he thinks the fighters could have done. Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that a couple of F-16s could actually have made it to Benghazi such that they were loitering when Doherty, et al, made contact with the evacuees at the CIA site.

            Handley (who can’t even get the name of the command correct – it’s AFRICOM, not AFRICON, an odd mistake, but no matter) waxes enthusiastic about the 500 20mm rounds that an F16 is carrying. Not sure if you have any idea about military weaponry, but a 20mm cannon is in essence just a big machine gun. Handley is describing two high-performance aircraft that can make a few strafing runs.

            The military significance of such a capability is almost nil in this situation. Doherty & Co were taking indirect fire from the area nearby – specifically, by mortar. A mortar is a weapon that fires at an extremely high angle in order that the shell lands from as nearly overhead as possible, minimizing the value of trenches, foxholes, or other protective barriers. Indirect fire means that the weapon is not fired line-of-sight; it depends on an observer or some other method of identifying the target and adjusting fire. In practical terms, this means that Doherty and company would have had no way to locate and target the weapons that were being fired at them, and thus no way to pass any information on to the pilots of the fast movers about where to fire those few cannon rounds.

            The F-16, unlike the A-10 (which is why so many of us Army types are aghast that the AF is trying to get rid of the A-10), must keep moving fast; the platform is not optimized for a pilot to loiter over a ground situation and try to identify targets by eyeball, and even an A-10 pilot would never spot one of these mortars.

            And, yeah, this is something that I have personal experience with. In Mogadishu, we had constant problems with mortars, and finding a mortar involves putting airborne assets with imagery capabilities over the suspected firing locations, and often required some pretty sophisticated work by the squints to account for camouflage, shadow, etc.

            So, no, there’s pretty much zero chance that a couple of F-16s scrambled on the fly with nothing but cannon rounds on board were going to be able to do to address the actual tactical problem facing Doherty and company. Which is probably why the attache in Tripoli recognized that he did not have any effective air assets available.

            “If they were scrambled as Handley suggested they could have adjusted as the situation unfolded.”

            What do you even mean by this? “Adjusted?” Was a target acquisition battery going to magically appear and backtrack the mortar flight paths to provide a target for the pilots? Were Kiowas going to suddenly appear and serve as spotters? What I’m trying to get you to understand is that a critical element to making air support work is that there needs to be an asset that can steer the platform to a target and make its weapons useful, and there was no such element in play.

            Don’t want to take my word for it? That’s fine. Here’s what BG Zobrist, the fighter wing commander, had to say about the appropriateness of the F-16: “from an F-16 pilot’s perspective, based on my experience, in F-16; or F-15E or any of our other fighter aircraft, would have limited effectiveness in dispersing a crowd or in an urban environment, especially with very little awareness.”

            For a fast mover to make a difference, it would need the appropriate weapons and the appropriate target awareness, and those both required time.

            “Pretending that we are looking at events that unfolded as prophesied is not an honest way to run postop analysis.”

            Then it’s a good thing that nobody is doing that. What you don’t seem to want to understand is that a fast mover armed with nothing but its 20mm cannon is a remarkably poor weapon for an irregular urban ground force, regardless of how events unfold.

            And, in fact, it’s being uncommonly charitable even to entertain the conversation. Handley offers a couple of casually silly comments. He suggests, for example, that the F-16s could refuel in Tripoli. Is he doing stand-up comedy? We’re going to scramble a couple of fighters, send them to strafe Benghazi, and have them land in the country they just attacked? Things went south in Benghazi because we misjudged who was in control of what, but we should have just assumed that there wouldn’t be any similar problems in Tripoli?

            “And it’s hard not to notice that your analysis happens to line up with your views of American hegemony.”

            Actually, it doesn’t. It’s an opinion on a tactical situation. The tactical situation involved a member of the State Department trying to work with local nationals in the wake of a change in government. None of that particularly touches on matters we’ve discussed concerning the over-use of the military to impose an American vision of order on other states. It’s simply not applicable to this situation.

            “Why can’t you just admit that this administration has very different views from “Orwellian” nationalists like me?”

            Because that would be changing the topic. The criticism of the administration concerning the response to Benghazi deals with whether the administration did all that it should have done to respond to the situation. In that context, the only questions that matter concerning the F-16s is whether they could actually have reached Benghazi as Handley suggests in his casual remarks, and whether they would have been militarily useful.

            Bottom line: Handley suggests that, by not doing anything silly like arming the planes with actual air-to-ground weapons, or taking the time to get any ISR assets in place that could, you know, figure out the situation and identify targets, we might have been able to get a couple of F-16s optimized for air-to-air dogfighting over Benghazi, scared a mob that wasn’t the issue, and then landed those aircraft in a country based on the hope that whatever was going wrong in Benghazi wouldn’t also go wrong in Tripoli. Yeah, that’s the sort of thoughtful military analysis we can hold up as a model.

            “Why not just express your views more honestly so that the conversations can move on more quickly?”

            If you can’t follow the comments, work harder to understand them, instead of making stupid comments like that. I don’t have a lot of patience for this sort of stuff tonight.

            “Are you internally conflicted? Whether or not you’re willing to admit it I think that you are.”

            About what? And why ask questions if you’re going to announce that you won’t accept the answer? You do okay until you meander into this sort of garbage.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So, no, there’s pretty much zero chance that a couple of F-16s scrambled on the fly with nothing but cannon rounds on board were going to be able to do to address the actual tactical problem facing Doherty and company. Which is probably why the attache in Tripoli recognized that he did not have any effective air assets available.”

            The point is that if every other option was for whatever reason not viable, the F16 would be able to show up and try to shape events. Nobody is claiming it’s the ideal response. Nobody. And ~0 is not absolute zero. You do exaggerate at just the right time though.

            And yeah, 20mm is 20mm.

            Seizing the initiative even without scoring any kills is better than nothing. That’s just how some people think. It’s OK to disagree. But don’t try to smear people for suggesting a different approach especially when it’s very easy to see how worldview would lead to different opinions about how valuable it is to bother trying.

            To be completely candid with you, I would have even preferred an unarmed plane just showing up rather than nothing – assuming we could get it there on time without making us look even worse – acknowledging your concerns.

            “Actually, it doesn’t. It’s an opinion on a tactical situation.”

            I disagree. My point is that we should be more aggressive. You act like the aggressive view is “irrational.” And it is from a bean counter or materialist perspective. I look at other factors. That’s a distinction in worldview and that is what I disagree with. Notice I’m not saying F16s are magic tools or 20mm canon should have been able to certainly kill our enemies in Benghazi at that time. We don’t know what would have happened because we didn’t try to seize the initiative for worldview reasons.

            Arguing that there are no other worldviews that would come to different conclusions than you is simply testimony to your own myopia. It doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you indifferent or blind to other legitimate views.

            “Bottom line: Handley suggests that, by not doing anything silly like arming the planes with actual air-to-ground weapons, or taking the time to get any ISR assets in place that could, you know, figure out the situation and identify targets, we might have been able to get a couple of F-16s optimized for air-to-air dogfighting over Benghazi, scared a mob that wasn’t the issue, and then landed those aircraft in a country based on the hope that whatever was going wrong in Benghazi wouldn’t also go wrong in Tripoli. Yeah, that’s the sort of thoughtful military analysis we can hold up as a model.”

            No, it’s not a model anyone would want to replicate and nobody suggested that it was. Some times you have to go with what you have and then worry about learning lessons afterwards. The risks to potential rewards argue in favor of launching the F16s if you have nothing better.

            And that still doesn’t fully answer why we didn’t have anything better. My first assumption was that the 6th Fleet would have some options. With all the excuses that leaves Aviano since I can’t say for sure what the Navy was doing at the moment. I know Aviano is supposed to have some kind of intercept coverage. So it’s an obvious lowest common denominator to focus on. Nobody is promoting F16s from Aviano as the ideal response to calls for support in Benghazi.

            It looks to me like they simply didn’t want ANY unscheduled flights over Libya because of “blowback” and “sovereignty” concerns. And maybe the answer is that this president hires people that think exactly like you. And that’s OK to have as role players but I disagree with this posture as an overall strategy. I don’t like it and I’d like to see some feet held to the fire. I’m not surprised that it probably won’t happen. The fact that I expect more than you does not make me irrational. I do have different expectations. I’m an American nationalist that thinks when America looks after its interests that generally speaking the entire world is better off even if the cameras can show someone getting hurt. Victims matter of course. But overall American hegemony is good for liberty loving people around the world. You think that American hegemony can be too big. That’s not saying it’s harder to manage the bigger it gets, which is true. As far as I can tell you think it’s legitimate to shrink American hegemony as an alternative to figuring out how to make sure we manage it sustainability.

            I can’t speak for you especially when you are some times evasive but I can speak about how I interpret the positions that you take. You want to see international institutions grow some kind of sovereignty to rule over certain matters (though I’m not clear about your specific vision) but you think it’s OK to have our rivals grow because according to your worldview that can lead to peace through some kind of organic harmony as long as you dissuade jingoistic nationalists from caring about their own nations. IOW nationalists in America are more or less like those crazy troublemaking Germans. As long as we control “xenophobia” the world should be at peace as long as there are no dominant superpowers creating blowback.

            You are quite simply less willing to argue for defending American hegemony than I am. And it has nothing to do with any alleged xenophobia. IMO America is a force for good in the world and when we’re not, it’s often because we’re so divided at home.

            That’s my worldview and that is where I disagree with you and people that share your views.

          • hiernonymous

            “To be completely candid with you, I would have even preferred an unarmed plane just showing up rather than nothing …”

            It’s not clear that you have enough background that what you would prefer or not prefer means a whole lot. For one thing, putting an F-16 at strafing altitude means that it can be shot at by unsophisticated weapons, not to mention the surface-to-air weapons still unaccounted for from Qadhafi’s arsenals. So your militarily useless gesture carries with it the very real risk of additional casualties, not to mention the loss of some expensive hardware. As a rule, there needs to be a benefit that outweighs the risks.

            “Arguing that there are no other worldviews that would come to different conclusions than you is simply testimony to your own myopia. It doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you indifferent or blind to other legitimate views.”

            No, it means that making an assessment of a tactical situation isn’t dependent on a worldview. If you want to talk about whether we should have been in Benghazi at all, etc etc etc, that’s fine, but the tactical effectiveness of an F-16′s 20mm cannon is not dependent on one’s politics.

            “I disagree. My point is that we should be more aggressive.”

            That’s a separate conversation. If you want to promote more aggressive U.S. foreign policy, that’s fine. But in the context of Benghazi and if and how it was a scandal, the question isn’t whether the administration was sending the right signals for the future, but whether it failed the people on the ground in Benghazi.

            “The risks to potential rewards argue in favor of launching the F16s if you have nothing better.”

            It might seem that way, if you don’t understand the benefits or the risks. General Ham’s position was and is that putting an inappropriately armed aircraft into an unknown operational environment with no clear mission and no clear targets would have been to accept high risk for no discernible benefit. It would be irresponsible decision making. His fighter wing commander supported that view.

            If you don’t understand how risking aircraft can make a dicey tactical situation much, much worse, I invite your attention to Black Hawk Down. It’s instructive.

            “And that still doesn’t fully answer why we didn’t have anything better.”

            There’s no obvious reason that there should have been. There’s a difference between being a powerful country and being an omnipotent one, and the movies seem to have left us with the impression that we can have pretty much unlimited force on call within minutes anywhere in the world. That’s not reasonable.

            And it’s easy to forget that, as far as situation requiring military force, Benghazi did not appear to be the most important military crisis shaping up. Cairo II had been stormed by a mob the same day, and a much, much larger diplomatic community was in danger. Any prudent military response to Benghazi had to ensure that it did not eliminate the ability to protect the Embassy in Cairo.

            “It looks to me like they simply didn’t want ANY unscheduled flights over Libya because of “blowback” and “sovereignty” concerns.”

            Given that the military leadership of the appropriate military command, from its 4-star commander on down, have cited the lack of effectiveness of the platform in question, the uncertain SAM environment, and the lack of useful targeting data as decisive factors in the decision not to try to throw F-16s at Libya, I’m not sure why it “looks” like that to you.

            “And maybe the answer is that this president hires people that think exactly like you.”

            Since every opinion I’ve offered on this situation has been firmly rooted in tactical and operational effectiveness, I’d say that he hires many, many people who think exactly like me. If you mean people who have political opinions you’ve heard me express on broader issues of the larger goals of going to war, well, I suppose that I was ‘hired’ by Reagan, but those views aren’t really germane here.

            “As far as I can tell you think it’s legitimate to shrink American hegemony as an alternative to figuring out how to make sure we manage it sustainability.”

            Completely different topic. Might be an interesting one to pursue sometime, but in the context of “Benghazi as scandal,” and my views on the adequacy of the administration’s tactical and operational response, it’s irrelevant.

            You are taking refuge in a topic with which you’re comfortable – broad politics – but this isn’t such a topic. You’ve offered an opinion on a very specific military matter – suggesting that the military should have sent 2 F-16s on a specific military mission – and I am trying to help you understand why, from a military perspective, that would have been a very bad idea.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, it means that making an assessment of a tactical situation isn’t dependent on a worldview. If you want to talk about whether we should have been in Benghazi at all, etc etc etc, that’s fine, but the tactical effectiveness of an F-16′s 20mm cannon is not dependent on one’s politics.”

            Why would you pretend that we’re arguing over the effectiveness of a 20mm cannon? We’re not arguing over the speed of sound and calculating atmospheric conditions from a historical event. We’re arguing over posture and preparedness. And a willingness to step up when we’re attacked.

            So you’re happy with what happened and it’s no big deal and you think you’re worldview doesn’t effect your feelings and preferences?

            “That’s a separate conversation. If you want to promote more aggressive U.S. foreign policy, that’s fine. But in the context of Benghazi and if and how it was a scandal, the question isn’t whether the administration was sending the right signals for the future, but whether it failed the people on the ground in Benghazi.”

            It’s not a separate conversation entirely because the more answers we get from Benghazi the more able critics like me are able to illustrate our concerns.

            Full Definition of SCANDAL

            1a : discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person

            b : conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

            2: loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace

            3a : a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it

            b : a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality

            4: malicious or defamatory gossip

            5: indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion

            There sure are bigger scandals to talk about. But it’s not “LOL.”

            “It might seem that way, if you don’t understand the benefits or the risks. General Ham’s position was and is that putting an inappropriately armed aircraft into an unknown operational environment with no clear mission and no clear targets would have been to accept high risk for no discernible benefit. It would be irresponsible decision making. His fighter wing commander supported that view.”

            There are always people that will argue for taking fewer risks. I’ll listen. But at the end of the day I want leadership taking responsibility and explaining what lessons were learned.

            “Completely different topic. Might be an interesting one to pursue sometime, but in the context of “Benghazi as scandal,” and my views on the adequacy of the administration’s tactical and operational response, it’s irrelevant.”

            You may not care about the relationships between the various topics but I do. Benghazi is a “scandal” because people are shocked and expect more clarity from our leaders. I understand that it just unfolds that way some times. I want to have answers that come from a sincere pursuit of the truth and grilling people that have a lackadaisical attitude about it. I’m not even accusing anyone of acting in bad faith on that day. I just want more details so that lessons learned can be integrated in to those other conversations I referred to.

            “You are taking refuge in a topic with which you’re comfortable – broad politics – but this isn’t such a topic. You’ve offered an opinion on a very specific military matter – suggesting that the military should have sent 2 F-16s on a specific military mission – and I am trying to help you understand why, from a military perspective, that would have been a very bad idea.”

            I’m interested in the political implications. And I never said it wasn’t a “bad” idea. I’m saying I don’t think it’s the very worst idea. Getting caught off guard is a bad idea. Now what?

          • hiernonymous

            “So you’re happy with what happened and it’s no big deal and you think you’re worldview doesn’t effect your feelings and preferences?”

            I’m satisfied that the administration’s military response was satisfactory, and that any legitimate concerns about Benghazi have to do with other matters entirely, such as how we resource State activities.

            “Why would you pretend that we’re arguing over the effectiveness of a 20mm cannon?”

            You have suggested that sending 2 F-16s armed only with vulcans to Beghazi would have been a militarily appropriate course of action. Evaluating this requires that we understand the capabilities of the platforms, the weapons, and the operational environment.

            More to the point, at issue in the ‘scandal’ aspect of Benghazi is not whether the administration’s actions follow some political agenda you’d like them to follow, but whether the administration’s actions or lack of actions were militarily inappropriate or inadequate, and whether those F-16s constituted a military ‘capability’ in the context of Benghazi. When you suggest that the administration should have sent a pair of fighters to Libya, you need to be able to show that doing so was the responsible and militarily orthodox course of action, such that not doing so represented some sort of negligence on the part of the administration.

            “And I never said it wasn’t a “bad” idea. I’m saying I don’t think it’s the very worst idea.”

            All that’s relevant here is whether the administration was negligent by not pursuing it. As it’s a pretty silly idea as it stands, it’s hard to see how the administration can be criticized for not pursuing it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m satisfied that the administration’s military response was satisfactory, and that any legitimate concerns about Benghazi have to do with other matters entirely, such as how we resource State activities.”

            Such as?

          • hiernonymous

            Different conversation. I’ve already discussed this before, and may again later, but not interested in unlimited spinoff conversations tonight.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You have suggested that sending 2 F-16s armed only with vulcans to Beghazi would have been a militarily appropriate course of action. Evaluating this requires that we understand the capabilities of the platforms, the weapons, and the operational environment.”

            Don’t take what I said out of context. I said it’s better than having nothing. That’s what I said. Would you have turned away an offer if you were on the ground during the attack? Spell it out. I missed it if you already answered. Would you turn down a flight of F16s if you were on the ground with them if your only other option was nothing at all?

          • hiernonymous

            “I missed it if you already answered.”

            Apparently so. If you scroll up, you’ll see my response to your post.

            If I’m on the ground that night, I have no way of employing that asset against the threat, so,no, I wouldn’t ask for the AF to send those pilots in for no good reason.

            Of course, the other option wasn’t “nothing at all.” In fact, Doherty was part of another option, or had you lost sight of the fact that he was part of the relief effort?

            “Don’t take what I said out of context.”

            I’m not. The context is the suggestion that the administration was somehow negligent in not sending those fighters.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “More to the point, at issue in the ‘scandal’ aspect of Benghazi is not whether the administration’s actions follow some political agenda you’d like them to follow, but whether the administration’s actions or lack of actions were militarily inappropriate or inadequate, and whether those F-16s constituted a military ‘capability’ in the context of Benghazi. When you suggest that the administration should have sent a pair of fighters to Libya, you need to be able to show that doing so was the responsible and militarily orthodox course of action, such that not doing so represented some sort of negligence on the part of the administration.”

            I’m actually trying to help people understand that we were not out of options. We were not completely out of options. And when you point out that the F16s were not ideal it begs the question what contingency plans should have been higher on the list?

            And I get no answers. Are there any air support / response options that you think would have been appropriate if we set aside the question of what was available at the time?

            Do you see where I’m going or not?

          • hiernonymous

            “Do you see where I’m going or not?”

            Nope.

            When Benghazi happened, the military assets were where they were, and could do what they could do. There’s no reason to think that anyone overlooked any, or failed to do something with them that they should have.

            If you’re suggesting that the highest priority of the U.S. military is to provide rapid response forces for State and intelligence personnel who get into sticky situations in the course of their activities, I’ll suggest that you don’t understand the mission of the military. If that’s not what you’re suggesting, then just come out and make your point.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When Benghazi happened, the military assets were where they were, and could do what they could do. There’s no reason to think that anyone overlooked any, or failed to do something with them that they should have.”

            Let me try again. Do you see any failures there or not? Whether leadership, planning, execution or whatever. How about lessons learned?

            What failures can you identify?
            What lessons have you learned?

            “If you’re suggesting that the highest priority of the U.S. military is to provide rapid response forces for State and intelligence personnel who get into sticky situations in the course of their activities, I’ll suggest that you don’t understand the mission of the military. If that’s not what you’re suggesting, then just come out and make your point.”

            No. I’m saying that we already have various contingency plans for a whole host of defensive operations. It surprises me that we would have nothing in the region that could be adapted for a little air support. That’s the number one thing.

            When you then claim that it would be futile (maybe so) I have to wonder why were were so naked. Part of the reason for laughing at the flight of F16s is that it seems like that’s literally the only option that we had? Really? I mean this is laughable to me considering what is going on in the region and how little security we had on the ground. It doesn’t add up to me.

            Third, I’d say that even if all of that is true, we never responded militarily at all that I can discern. We never made them pay any price. I think that’s wrong. It’s not a police matter when radical jihadis attack a US embassy. We’ll some times have to take these hits, of course. And I’m not critical of anyone just because I expect magic politicians to make all threats disappear. Obviously. I’m questioning how we respond.

            I think it was more important to the administration support narratives that were already committed to for the election and to serve the larger objectives of shrinking our hegemony as a strategic objective.

            And overall I think that our response to the attacks sends signals consistent with policies I disagree with. It would therefore be useful to get enough details to use them as an example. That doesn’t mean someone somewhere other than the political leaders did anything wrong. Everyone will have their justifications and so forth but ultimately it’s the responsibility of the president to lead and to react appropriately according to his oath.

            When people engage in nothing but butt-coverage and try to mock those asking legitimate questions I can’t take them as seriously as I would someone that both knows something useful and cooperates in the conversations.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s not clear that you have enough background that what you would prefer or not prefer means a whole lot. For one thing, putting an F-16 at strafing altitude means that it can be shot at by unsophisticated weapons, not to mention the surface-to-air weapons still unaccounted for from Qadhafi’s arsenals. So your militarily useless gesture carries with it the very real risk of additional casualties, not to mention the loss of some expensive hardware. As a rule, there needs to be a benefit that outweighs the risks.”

            You could apply the same excuses to any air support effort. Some some close air support planes would be even more vulnerable. So military operations have risk. I don’t see what’s dramatically different in Benghazi. Accept the worldview that says we “don’t (want to) do stupid stuff.”

            We’ve now signaled that we’ll just take the hit and send drones or the FBI…if that. Actually they probably already knew. It’s the American public that might want to figure out what this kind of approach leads to. It leads to the same thing Israel deals with. Perpetual war because winning wars and protecting our interests just leads to “blow back.”

          • hiernonymous

            “You could apply the same excuses to any air support effort. ”

            I’m not sure what “excuses” you’re talking about, but if you mean you could apply a risk analysis before any military operation, well, duh.

            “We’ve now signaled that we’ll just take the hit and send drones or the FBI…”

            Or that we’ll actually do the job correctly, rather than panicking into turning a bad situation worse.

            Seal Team 6 has been unusually active recently for a country that will just send the drones of the FBI. It may be that you’re seeing things pretty selectively, but that’s another topic, and not one I’m interested in starting tonight.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Or that we’ll actually do the job correctly, rather than panicking into turning a bad situation worse.”

            And doing it correctly is how? Waiting for the FBI?

            “Seal Team 6 has been unusually active recently for a country that will just send the drones of the FBI. It may be that you’re seeing things pretty selectively, but that’s another topic, and not one I’m interested in starting tonight.”

            You think we’re out killing these guys in big numbers and keeping it quiet or you think the few that we know about publicly are enough?

            I think that you have the approach of a materialist and that’s OK as a niche player. It doesn’t address all of my concerns and you should try to learn to respect that.

          • hiernonymous

            “And doing it correctly is how? Waiting for the FBI?”

            Is that what happened? Did the annex personnel remained trapped in Benghazi until the FBI was brought in?

            “You think we’re out killing these guys in big numbers and keeping it quiet or you think the few that we know about publicly are enough?”

            When you describe this activity as “the few that we know about publicly,” what do you believe the extent of “the few” to be?

            “It doesn’t address all of my concerns and you should try to learn to respect that.”

            When your philosophical musings lead you to distort facts or engage in musings for which you are unequipped, I don’t need to respect that. You want to grump about Benghazi? More power to you. Knock yourself out. You want to offer military advice about how the administration should have responded? Know what you’re talking about or expect to receive some feedback. Though that feedback has been far more ‘respectful’ than you offer when faced with similar levels of analysis. You’re welcome.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Is that what happened? Did the annex personnel remained trapped in Benghazi until the FBI was brought in?”

            No. I’m actually talking about policy perceptions. We seem to be more concerned about how “the world” thinks we behave.

            “When you describe this activity as “the few that we know about publicly,” what do you believe the extent of “the few” to be?”

            We’re not killing enough of them. And killing is not the objective. Taking away their ability to muster resources and people to use against us is the objective. And we’re failing for the most part because the objective in my view is stalemate and change the public perception that terror is just “workplace violence” and these events should be handled by the police rather than the military.

            That is the central issue.

            “You want to offer military advice about how the administration should have responded?”

            Actually – no I don’t. I want to see you stop this nonsense about how limited our capabilities are and admit that we’re in this position because of policy choices.

          • hiernonymous

            “We’re not killing enough of them. And killing is not the objective. Taking away their ability to muster resources and people to use against us is the objective.”

            Yet, if you think that military action is the appropriate prescription, it’s hard to see what your complaint is. The current administration has launched an unrelenting series of raids on enemy leadership and on hostage takers. Again, are you able to summarize our military actions over, say, the past 18 months or so? Say, list the countries in which we have launched strikes and raids, and address the general targets of such actions?

            “Actually – no I don’t. I want to see you stop this nonsense about how limited our capabilities are and admit that we’re in this position because of policy choices.”

            It’s not clear what “this position” is. As for “nonsense about how limited our capabilities are,” what, exactly, have I said that you claim is wrong? So far, “this position” appears to be your lack of understanding of what our capabilities are. Those capabilities are fantastic – better than any other state’s – but they are not infinite.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It’s not clear what “this position” is. As for “nonsense about how limited our capabilities are,” what, exactly, have I said that you claim is wrong?”

            If I give every American the benefit of all doubts, the supposed reasons for our limitations is budget driven. This is also bullcrap. Or shrinking posture has impacted trade. We’re trying to accomplish too many stupid things and not enough smart things and instead just label it smart.

            I believe I explained this before. The military budgets should be increased. We just take more aggressive stances against people that fund jihadi terrorists. We should get tougher with China and it’s economic policies that straining our economy. If you don’t look at the big picture coherently you’ll think of yourself as the realistic because of false assumptions you’ve made about available resources if nothing else.

            Even Bush was too timid with regard to the economy I assume because he believed he had to try to appease his domestic enemies. This guy now is all in with the stupidity. And don’t ask “what stupidity” because I’m been explaining it to you ever since you started commenting here.

            The big picture DOES matter because provisioning matters and if you don’t manage our economy properly and blame it on some allegedly overwhelming and rigid factor then all of your decisions that rely on that false assumption become questionable.

            “Those capabilities are fantastic – better than any other state’s – but they are not infinite.”

            Bush tried to get away too cheap in Iraq. What does the Peace Prize winner do? Way worse in every respect. And they’re much greater than you realize because you don’t understand macroeconomics well enough to see the big picture and the ultimate driving factors. You have some understanding of economics and negotiating for “social justice” remedies but you seem to have no clue that “social justice” leads to shrinking budgets, lower productively over all, and the same calculations that are used to justify these interventions also lead to false conclusions about costs and benefits of a strong military that keeps global trade relatively secure.

            You resist seeing connections. You say they’re not relevant. But as soon as you cite budget concerns (which are legitimate concerns) you blow this idea that the connections, that the big picture, does not matter.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            This is approximately what the terrorists would have seen if an F16 arrived for a strafing run:

            https://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=2xMD0bGodFE

            And go ahead and tell me that if you were on the ground that day that you would decline air support from an F16 if the other choice was no air support at all. I want to see you write that.

          • hiernonymous

            If you want to debate by video, then here’s a view of the same sort of thing from the pilot’s end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eSx5i8nQ1M

            Learning point: absent ISR assets or someone on the ground able to provide a target, the pilot sure isn’t going to pick one out on his own. And nobody on the ground that night could provide that target.

            “And go ahead and tell me that if you were on the ground that day that you would decline air support from an F16 if the other choice was no air support at all. I want to see you write that.”

            Without effective air-to-ground weapons, ISR assets, and some targeting data, none of which were available, there was no difference between air support from one of your hypothetical F16s and no air support at all.

            By the way, I’m not sure what you think you see when you look at that video, but what you should see is an aircraft well within direct fire range of the sorts of weapons readily available to the militias in Benghazi. While the mortars firing on the compound were hidden and hard to find, that aircraft has exactly nothing to hide behind.

            Oh, and by the way, that short little buzz you heard? That was probably about 1/5 of that aircraft’s ammunition. 500 rounds is about 5 seconds’ worth of firing on these weapons.

            Again, I invite you to consider the question you asked Americana about her background and why you asked it. This could lead you to two very different conclusions, but there’s some value to either.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Learning point: absent ISR assets or someone on the ground able to provide a target, the pilot sure isn’t going to pick one out on his own. And nobody on the ground that night could provide that target.”

            Again, I realize it’s a difficult task for the pilot. The worst thing that would happen for us offensively is the jihadis would have to focus their attention on the planes and that would open up opportunities for us. The jihadis are not going to be sitting around “LOL look at this youtube video – just ignore the jet.” And the very worst thing is losing the planes, but that can happen on any mission.

            “Again, I invite you to consider the question you asked Americana about her background and why you asked it. This could lead you to two very different conclusions, but there’s some value to either.”

            I already heard her peddling massive bullshit. There is nothing I’m interested in hearing from her that would help establish her bona fides without her going back and admitting that she comments on things even when she has no clue. She’s peddling opinions and acting like there are no other legitimate views. She’s absurd. She’s a joke. You just like it because she helps regurgitate talking points that you agree with.

          • hiernonymous

            “The worst thing that would happen for us offensively is the jihadis would have to focus their attention on the planes and that would open up opportunities for us.”

            Well, no, not by a long shot. The worst thing that could happen is that the militias ignore the fast mover as the irrelevancy that it is, continue to press their attack, and the pilot, trying to make a difference, unloads into a) a bunch of civilians, or b) a formerly friendly militia, or c) our own guys, then gets taken down, parachutes into the city, and we get embroiled in either a hostage situation or an elaborate, high-casualty rescue operation.

            Did I already invite you to watch Black Hawk Down? I’m almost certain I did.

            “…she comments on things even when she has no clue. ”

            Ah. Has she gone so far as to post a youtube video to illustrate a tactical point she doesn’t quite understand? Are you catching my drift? Or are you convinced that “it’s different?” If you really object to people talking beyond their expertise, that suggests a course of action in this conversation. That was one of the directions this could go; not the most productive direction, but certainly one of the logical consequences.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Did I already invite you to watch Black Hawk Down? I’m almost certain I did.”

            A Blackhawk and an F16 both fly. I know. They can both be attacked. I get it.

            “Ah. Has she gone so far as to post a youtube video to illustrate a tactical point she doesn’t quite understand?”

            The question is not how I understand a 20mm cannon strafe but how jihadis would react to it. I didn’t expect you to “learn” anything from the video if you’ve already been under strafing runs. I’m simply reminding you of the enemy’s perspective. So, no. Very bad example. The enemy usually doesn’t sit around laughing when planes strafe them. Even a biplane would be something they’d have to deal with on top of their attack. I don’t know why you try to play games and miss the point.

            “If you really object to people talking beyond their expertise, that suggests a course of action in this conversation.”

            I know generally how people react to gunfire (or cannon-fire) from fast moving objects. There is no expertise required to acknowledge the simple fact that it would have slowed them down if nothing else.

            These are all interesting questions and comments. However, if I take your “expert” opinion and follow it to the logical conclusions it seems like we should disband our military and throw all guns away to reduce blowback and inspire world peace because everything else is just too risky. Is that your “expert” opinion?

          • hiernonymous

            ” I’m simply reminding you of the enemy’s perspective. So, no. Very bad example.”

            Unless your consulting business involved squatting beside jihadis under air attack, it’s a pretty good example. Not sure how extensively you’ve studied how people behave under air attack, or how your personal experience lends you insight into the matter. As the incident in question happened in an urban area at night, it’s not clear what sort of insight you think a video of a daylight strafing run by an F-16 on an open range gives you into the probable tactical effect on an ongoing mortar attack. When you say “even a biplane would be something they’d have to deal with on top of their attack,” it’s not obvious that you have a clear understanding of what “their attack” consisted of or how they would have to “deal with it,” and how that would have changed the outcome in any way.

            “I know generally how people react to gunfire (or cannon-fire) from fast moving objects.”

            How do you know?

            “There is no expertise required to acknowledge the simple fact that it would have slowed them down if nothing else.”

            There is some expertise – or at least a rudimentary level of knowledge that you are not betraying – involved in understanding what they were doing in the first place, understanding what is meant by “slow them down,” and evaluating whether that has any significance. How, exactly, do you suppose that hearing an F-16 flyby and the buzz of a vulcan would have impacted a mortar barrage? Would it have caused a 4-second pause at the tube while the mortarman glanced around? Are you asserting that the firing units would have jumped or displaced? Those observing and adjusting the fire would not have been moving or rushing the compound, but hiding and communicating with the firing ‘batteries’ – so it’s not obvious what you mean when you talk about “slowing them down.”

            “However, if I take your “expert” opinion and follow it to the logical conclusions it seems like we should disband our military and throw all guns away to reduce blowback and inspire world peace because everything else is just too risky.”

            Then your logic is flawed, intentionally or otherwise.

            You seem to have an unrealistic and, dare I say, petulant expectation of the ability of the military to respond, worldwide, in a matter of minutes to every emerging incident of violence. Most states in the world do not have worldwide reach, and think in terms of weeks or months in responding to events that are within their reach. Even the U.S. military normally needs to think in terms of days.

            We actually could have had an effective air response over Benghazi given a few more hours, and had the situation been so dire as to require it, no doubt we would have. We know that there were a number of military assets in motion and being prepared for use had the initial response – the team from Tripoli – not successfully extracted the Benghazi personnel. We know that an SF team training in Croatia was pulled and was being prepped. The ISR assets that would have allowed a properly equipped and supported air response were coming into play. In short, everything that was supposed to happen, happened. You are parroting Handley’s suggestion that putting a couple of F-16s with no effective weapons, no effective targeting data, and no fueling support over a hostile city in the dead of night would have constituted an improvement to the response. That’s nonsense.

            Again, I suggest that you mull over the mission of the military. We don’t keep our forces deployed worldwide as a rapid-response force designed to get anywhere in the world within an hour or two. We keep forces forward deployed to reduce response times to major military crises from weeks to days. Our air forces can respond most places within hours, but apparently not few enough hours to make you happy. Oh, well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You seem to have an unrealistic and, dare I say, petulant expectation of the ability of the military to respond, worldwide, in a matter of minutes to every emerging incident of violence.”

            Wait a minute. Libya is not some far off land where some random violence happened to erupt. We had just taken out the established sovereign. We knew or should have known more or less where these guys were operating and had plans to counter some of the possibilities.

            It doesn’t mean we prevent every death or pull off astounding heroics at any moment. But for you to pretend Libya is no different than…I don’t know…some embassy getting randomly attacked in South American is again more straw man and just chaff thrown in the are to shift focus from legitimate criticism of this a-hole’s foreign policy. I assume that’s at least in part because you agree with his goals.

            “We actually could have had an effective air response over Benghazi given a few more hours, and had the situation been so dire as to require it, no doubt we would have.”

            Now we’re getting to the meat of the controversy. What could have been done and why was our readiness state such that so much time would have been needed when Libya was in “turmoil” even if we disagree over how stable or not the situation was. We had just taken out the sovereign with violent air attacks. But we can’t help stabilize the region with some of those same tools? This is silly.

            And if the answer is that there were forces on the ground then let’s hear about it. All I hear are circular arguments about ‘LOL we can’t secure the world’ and we had just taken out a relatively predictable sovereign. Pottery Barn Rules. We should have had better control of the aftermath. Especially given the lessons learned during the whole War on Terror.

            I find some of your answers a little interesting but at the same time you’re mostly throwing up chaff.

          • hiernonymous

            “Wait a minute. Libya is not some far off land where some random violence happened to erupt. We had just taken out the established sovereign. We knew or should have known more or less where these guys were operating and had plans to counter some of the possibilities.”

            Libya is a far off land, and, in fact, some random violence did happen to erupt. If your point is that we had reason to expect random violence to erupt in Libya, sure – but then, we have reason to expect it to erupt in many places. Libya is no more unique than it is quiet and peaceful, and in the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t the most important contingency in North Africa, let alone the whole Med or Middle East. It wasn’t even the most significant ongoing act of violence that day. In terms of potential losses, political and military significance, nothing happening in Benghazi that day held a candle to the situation in Cairo. One wonders what the last couple of years’ worth of bloviating would have sounded like had Cairo II ended up with hundreds of Americans killed or captured.

            I take it from the turn of the conversation that we can drop as settled the nonsense that the administration failed to use our military assets properly. You’re now arguing that there should have been more assets, or that they should have been disposed differently, etc, but I think we are done with the “the administration abandoned 4 Americans, it told units to stand down, it failed to use available assets, etc etc” – agreed, or no?

            “Now we’re getting to the meat of the controversy. What could have been done and why was our readiness state such that so much time would have been needed when Libya was in “turmoil”…”

            Again, you keep talking about “so much time.” What you don’t seem to appreciate is that this was a remarkably brief incident. There’s no “so much time” in play here – assets were shifted with remarkable alacrity. As it turns out, the situation was resolved with in-country assets before out-of-country assets could be and needed to be deployed.

            Where is tomorrow’s crisis? What is the oh-so-obvious firefight or mob or terrorist attack that will happen next?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Libya is a far off land, and, in fact, some random violence did happen to erupt. If your point is that we had reason to expect random violence to erupt in Libya, sure – but then, we have reason to expect it to erupt in many places. Libya is no more unique than it is quiet and peaceful, and in the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t the most important contingency in North Africa, let alone the whole Med or Middle East. It wasn’t even the most significant ongoing act of violence that day. In terms of potential losses, political and military significance, nothing happening in Benghazi that day held a candle to the situation in Cairo. One wonders what the last couple of years’ worth of bloviating would have sounded like had Cairo II ended up with hundreds of Americans killed or captured.”

            Wait a minute. Are you forgetting our intervention there where we had a guy that was not exactly a warm friend but he was keeping the jihadis in check? How was it “smart power” to take him out…and then act surprised when jihadis turn on us as they always have historically when they’re done using the idiotic temporary partners?

            You really haven’t noticed any patterns here? You really think that eventually jihadi violence can just be handled by local police at some point? I’m not getting what you think the big picture is.

            “I take it from the turn of the conversation that we can drop as settled the nonsense that the administration failed to use our military assets properly. You’re now arguing that there should have been more assets, or that they should have been disposed differently, etc,”

            Yes and no. Those are not accusations I made, but demanding specific answers is part of a progressive process. The result is controversial for reasons I mentioned. The controversies have not gone away even though some of the details are known.

            I’ve told you my theory all along. I never pretended to have more details. I only supported those demanding specific answers and I realize that some answers can’t be revealed.

            The bottom line is that Benghazi was of course tragic. Conservative objections are not about holding anyone to any unrealistic standards. But directing criticism forces some of those answers to be revealed or at least it forces positions to be taken. It’s somewhat like a game but a very serious one.

            Ultimately the criticism is about policies and some suspicion that other anti-American acts can possibly be discovered. This guy is not trusted for very good reasons. Trying to catch bad actors is not always about strictly scientific or purely materialistic inquiry.

            Even if all of the apologetics are legitimate it still does not allay any concerns about his intentions or his competence.

            “…but I think we are done with the “the administration abandoned 4 Americans, it told units to stand down, it failed to use available assets, etc etc” – agreed, or no?”

            Whether he failed before, during or some combination was something that needed to be discovered and pinned down. That process is moving along. The controversy in my mind was never really about whether he actively intervened to allow the jihadis to get away relatively unscathed or was that just the result of his consistent policy direction of weakening our posture? We have some answers that we didn’t have before.

            At this point, as I have said many times, I don’t think Benghazi is the most pressing controversy to deal with. The closest thing to getting an answer from me is that I don’t think we need to learn more from the military unless someone comes forward as a whistle-blower and reveals something that at this time is totally off the public’s political radar. I’m happy to put it to rest for now.

            If I found myself sitting in Congress I’d be pushing for resolution on the IRS scandals first but not to the point of getting distracted from undoing a lot of the harm that’s been done since the banking crisis, stimulus spending and all of the other idiotic interventions that scare and discourage entrepreneurs from building our economy as they naturally want to do.

            If you want less focus on scandal you should lobby the DP to be more forthcoming about what it is they’re actually trying to accomplish for this nation instead of defending them when they’re playing destructive populist games.

          • hiernonymous

            “If you want less focus on scandal…”

            Not at all. You’ve not paid attention to my posts, in the past and now. I have no objection to scandal – where there’s scandal to be found. I don’t mind hard questions about real issues. The legitimate questions about Benghazi deal with the resourcing and activities of State, of the role of Defense in the foreign policy process, and the extent to which we have become risk-averse.

            What I have no patience for is ideologues trying to pile on or to invent issues that aren’t. It has been plain since at least the release of the first basic timelines that the operational and tactical response to Benghazi was acceptable, though I seem to recall a couple of people working themselves into a high state of histrionics over my lack of empathy or some such in observing the same. In your case, it’s not obvious why you insist on noodling about with the question of a pair of F-16s; you seem to be following an “ends justifies the means” approach that translates to “silly accusations are acceptable since they lead to answers on matters we are really concerned about.”

            You also seem to forget that the guy you now euphemistically describe as “not exactly a warm friend” was, in fact, a state sponsor of terror responsible for the Lockerbie terrorist attack among many other crimes.

            “I’m not getting what you think the big picture is.”

            I’ve said it often enough. When finals are over in a couple of weeks, I might indulge you in a big picture conversation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The legitimate questions about Benghazi deal with the resourcing and activities of State, of the role of Defense in the foreign policy process, and the extent to which we have become risk-averse.”

            I agree. If we have a strong military presence and good overall security planning, that takes some pressure off of State (DoS). So when State leaves itself exposed you have to wonder why, and that leads to questions about how we handled the aftermath of our intervention that took out Qaddafi. I’m sure you can see the logic in all of this if you look at the bigger pictures rather than starting your focus in the middle of a heated debate where some people are getting angry.

            “What I have no patience for is ideologues…”

            Maybe a little more patience is due in finding out what the ideologues are getting at.

            “…trying to pile on or to invent issues that aren’t. It has been plain since at least the release of the first basic timelines that the operational and tactical response to Benghazi was acceptable, though I seem to recall a couple of people working themselves into a high state of histrionics over my lack of empathy or some such in observing the same.”

            I don’t think it’s acceptable. Which is not to criticize any of the local players. It’s a leadership question and that’s how I’ve understood it all along.

            Let me give an an analog in the IRS scandal. I never expected a malicious player like Lois Lerner. I kind of expected to find out that the IRS culture had been tilted by getting caught up in the rhetoric and that led to some mistakes. The IRS is turning already in to a much bigger deal than I had expected. We don’t know what will pop out until we muster enough political pressure to get some results.

            Likewise with the ACA, I was very clear about what I thought of the law. However, I didn’t expect that a bunch (or at least one that has been completely outed so far) of arrogant elitists would go around bragging about how they defrauded the American public.

            So I’ll just say that on the one hand I am tolerant of people when they have legitimate anger. I’ll forgive some accusations that others might object to if they’re possibly on the right track. On the other hand, I have a pretty good (though not perfect) track record of knowing where there are scandals brewing and when cover-ups are being attempted.

            As for your defense of this is how so and so would calculate risks and so forth, that is helpful. But it’s not helpful to me when you then go on to object to people pressing for answers that even include some borderline suggestions. Because the scandal is not that people love F16s. The scandal is that we were far less prepared and Libya was far more dangerous than the administration was trying to front.

            We had just intervened there. The administration has not done a good job at all in conveying to the public what we should expect. I’m sorry but it’s exactly the same problem as when Nidal Hasan shoots up a base and it’s referred to as workplace violence. Yeah, we know that part. There is simply a huge chasm between what this guy conveys to the public and the facts on the ground as they unfold and people are sick of it. People do not trust the guy. And I strongly suspect that the people that continue to support this president don’t do it because they think he’s honest. So why should anyone trust this administration?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In your case, it’s not obvious why you insist on noodling about with the question of a pair of F-16s; you seem to be following an “ends justifies the means” approach that translates to “silly accusations are acceptable since they lead to answers on matters we are really concerned about.””

            You may regard these questions as silly. Most people do not.

            I didn’t see your answer to my question regarding whether you would turn down support from a flight of F16s if you were on the ground that day. Is the question about F16 support silly when it’s asked in that way?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You also seem to forget that the guy you now euphemistically describe as “not exactly a warm friend” was, in fact, a state sponsor of terror responsible for the Lockerbie terrorist attack among many other crimes.”

            Right. But realists understand that we have to deal with the big picture. The guy didn’t want to lose what he had. He was under control. If there is a time for revenge certainly that time had long passed. If I were to make a list of which states to attack in order to create deterrence for future terror sponsorship Libya would have been fairly low. Yeah, it would have been on the list but it seems like he was already getting the message. He was not highest on the list. It was just easier politically to attack him because he’s “known” as “the madman” or something like that.

            I’m not crying for his demise on a personal level. Just saying all things considered it was a stupid intervention and even if it was “smart” I don’t see how that would justify blowing the after party.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve said it often enough. When finals are over in a couple of weeks, I might indulge you in a big picture conversation.”

            I’ve summarized what I’ve picked up as far as I can understand it. If you want to add to that I’ll read with interest.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Don’t is a contraction of do and not. Why didn’t you know that? Didn’t is a contraction of did and not. Why didn’t you know that? Hmmmmm? WHY!!!!??!?!!? Are you just catching up to me now? Hmmm? Sure you’ll say you already knew this but OBVIOUSLY you learned from me!!!!

            That’s what borderline insanity looks like. It looks a lot like you, missy.

          • Americana

            What are you blathering about? The above is what insanity looks like. That along w/denial about your personal effing up. Just use correct grammar from now on.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Good luck.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You certainly weren’t of that opinion last year.”

            Jeez. You’re WAY worse than I thought. Talk to your doctor about Zoloft.

          • Americana

            You’re way worse in terms of being a rip-off artist than I ever thought possible. If Zoloft helps w/memory issues, perhaps you should consider taking out a prescription?

            Shall I go look for some of your Sec/Def Rumsfeld ridicule of that idea of mine from a year ago? You WEREN’T of that opinion last year. Your repeated cry was that I was “blaming Bush” w/no recognition at all that you understood that the military reduction and deployment was still the driver for how the military is deployed today.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Shall I go look for some of your Sec/Def Rumsfeld ridicule of that idea of mine from a year ago?”

            Go ahead. If you can’t even follow conversations from the same day why would I expect you to remember what I said a year ago?

            http://www.drugs.Com/zoloft.html

            What is Zoloft?

            Zoloft (sertraline) is an antidepressant in a group of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Sertraline affects chemicals in the brain that may become unbalanced and cause depression, panic, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive symptoms.

            Zoloft is used to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

            Zoloft may also be used for purposes not listed in this medication guide.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m following conversations just fine. No thanks to you and your intentionally derailing interminable posts of insults. As for me misremembering conversations from a year ago, I don’t remember YOU coming out of the woodwork to defend my perspective on the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

            Considering how much flak I was catching for bringing up the realities of the Rumsfeld Doctrine and how it’s subsequently affected our military readiness in regard to countering jihadi actiities, I would DEFINITELY have remembered if you’d said anything in defense of my point about the Rumsfeld Doctrine. I’m off to check that out now… Let’s just see what OFM had to say last year about this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            OCD conversations:

            “As for me misremembering conversations from a year ago, I don’t remember YOU coming out of the woodwork to defend my perspective on the Rumsfeld Doctrine.”

          • Americana

            Produce a single post of YOURS from 2013 where you didn’t rail against my bringing up Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in terms of the international reduction in force of the U.S. military and how that reduction in force and in the number of bases increased the vulnerability of U.S. diplomatic facilities. Your attitude from a year ago was that I was blaming this Benghazi incident solely on Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld. You and Pete also demanded that I prove that ANY of the BASES that were eliminated under Sec. Rumsfeld’s plan would have been able to have provided RRF military personnel to rescue the Benghazi diplomatic outpost and the CIA facility.

            You brought up the blame game again by claiming that any U.S. President and his administration have the ability to revise his predecessor’s decisions. (As if those Presidential decisions can yield INSTANT RESULTS.) I guess you just don’t know it took years for the Rumsfeld Doctrine to be enacted and it would TAKE YEARS for the Rumsfeld Doctrine to be UNDONE and the U.S. to (re)negotiate SOFA agreements for bases as well as potentially increase the number of U.S. troops, etc. You also must be either forgetting or ignorant of the fact that most countries in the Middle East are not anxious to host American troops or American bases. This leaves the U.S. w/trying to negotiate SOFA agreements w/the North African countries in order to have bases close enough to the most vulnerable American diplomatic outposts. Trouble is, these North African countries are themselves facing a huge increase in jihadi terrorism and by potentially choosing to expand our U.S. military presence there, we are exponentially increasing our risk.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Cite me or bite my, psycho.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your repeated cry was that I was “blaming Bush” w/no recognition at all that you understood that the military reduction and deployment was still the driver for how the military is deployed today.”

            So Bush somehow prevented the guy that got elected after him from taking any of his own decisions. In effect, Bush still is president. And somehow by expecting presidents and others to make adjustments I therefore denied your brilliant analysis that it is Bush AND Rumsfeld’s fault and therefore…what? Oh, because they had to save money.

            If you can’t answer sensibly I’ll just ignore the rant that I expect will come.

          • Americana

            That’s NOT what I’m stating at all but, of course, you’re going to claim that’s what I’ve always written in an attempt to make me look idiotic. However, in that case, why are you now bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine yourself? OMG, you’ve run right into another of those darn Catch-22s that you always seem to run into!!! (Worse yet, you’re running into it because you chose to ridicule someone and yet cite the very same issues yourself.)

            I’m saying that having a MONOLITHIC ENTITY like the U.S. Armed Forces PULL BACK from an extremely expensive policy change such as happened under Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld’s reduction in TOTAL U.S. military forces along w/its accompanying alteration/redeployment of the types of forces we deploy is NOT HIGHLY LIKELY. We’ve relinquished those bases, severed those SOFA agreements that permitted those bases to be in those places.

            What was always likely to happen (and which seems to have been what happened) is that subsequent Secretaries of Defense and the Joint Chiefs would try to find ways of WORKING WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE RUMSFELD DOCTRINE and hope for the best. This is definitely what occurred after the Joint Chiefs analyzed the Benghazi attack and they placed a new Rapid Reaction Force at a base which hadn’t had an RRF force previously along w/putting RRF forces on ALL American vessels that have Marine Expeditionary Forces aboard.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana objectivefactsmatter • 8 hours ago: “That’s NOT what I’m stating at all but, of course, you’re going to claim that’s what I’ve always written in an attempt to make me look idiotic. However, in that case, why are you now bringing up the Rumsfeld Doctrine yourself? OMG, you’ve run right into another of those darn Catch-22s that you always seem to run into!!! (Worse yet, you’re running into it because you chose to ridicule someone and yet cite the very same issues yourself.)”
            This is just out of control.
            “I’m saying that having a MONOLITHIC ENTITY like the U.S. Armed Forces PULL BACK from an extremely expensive policy change such as happened under Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld’s reduction in TOTAL U.S. military forces along w/its accompanying alteration/redeployment of the types of forces we deploy is NOT HIGHLY LIKELY. We’ve relinquished those bases, severed those SOFA agreements that permitted those bases to be in those places.”

            So what? This is a strawman argument. The US military is extremely flexible. The public is not concerned about every last detail. Most people understand cost concerns and the reality that we can’t plan for every contingency. See, I alrready explained to you at least once exactly what the problem is. There didn’t seem to be any contingency plans other than to treat jihad as “workplace violence” whether it occurs in the USA or abroad. And sending jets to buzz AQ while attacking our embassy contradicts that approach. It also makes it look like the entire 0 2012 campaign of “AQ? LOL! On the run!” was a bunch of bullshit.
            Why am I wasting my time writing nuanced statements for you when you haven’t even started your Zoloft therapy?

          • Americana

            (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.”

            Oh, the U.S. military **is** “extremely flexible”? Forgive me while I laugh hysterically for half an hour before resuming typing and stating my objections to that fallacious steaming pile of turkey dung that was just evacuated by objectivefactsmatter. The Rumsfeld Doctrine was executed over a NUMBER OF YEARS. It would take another couple of years to REVERSE the Rumsfeld Doctrine and COMPLETE the REBUILDING OF THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL MILITARY FOOTPRINT should the U.S. Congress see fit to do so. The U.S. military might be “extremely flexible” (at heart) but the U.S. military is ONLY AS FLEXIBLE AS CONGRESS LETS IT BE. Besides, other countries are not always “extremely flexible”. The INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT of the U.S. military is dependent on convincing foreign governments that the U.S. should be able to maintain U.S. bases and large numbers of U.S. military personnel on THEIR SOVEREIGN TERRITORY. Obviously, if the U.S. FAILS to negotiate and sign a new SOFA agreement w/the Iraqis, or w/any other country for that matter, our U.S. military flexibility can be considerably hampered in its attempts to guard American diplomatic facilities as well as U.S. interests abroad.

            (OFM) “There didn’t seem to be any contingency plans other than to treat jihad as “workplace violence” whether it occurs in the USA or abroad.”

            The factually challenged objectivefactsmatter has decided that it’s better to attempt to negate the concept of the U.S. reliance on the Rapid Response Forces than to recognize that those RRForces might experience tactical failures like Benghazi. OFM has decided that he’s going to attack the whole issue of American vulnerability by attributing jihadi attacks to the U.S. government failing at **CORRECTLY LABELING JIHADIST TERRORIST ATTACKS** as such. As if the labeling of such attacks has ANYTHING TO DO w/whether they’re planned for and successfully executed!!! Well, I’ve got news for you, OFM, this whole line of BS from you is hogwash. There wouldn’t be the incredible ramping up of cyber oversight and interdiction of electronic messaging if the U.S. government weren’t trying its utmost to detect and foil jihadi plots. THAT INCREASE IN INTERNATIONAL CYBER SECURITY is one of the most massive contingency plans that has ever been created in an attempt to keep the U.S. mainland and U.S. interests safe from jihadi terrorism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            For the most part you’re arguing with yourself. I don’t see anyone else interested in your rants.

            I don’t trust this president for the reasons I’ve outlined for several years. And I don’t bother engaging with lunatics until the rants get dangerous. Carry on if you wish. I’ll interrupt if I think what you say is dangerous.

            Do talk to your doctor about that Zoloft or something similar.

          • Americana

            Hahaha. It’s so patently clear when you don’t have a rebuttal up your sleeve. (OFM) “For the most part you’re arguing with yourself”? Ah, NO, I’m arguing specifically and seemingly interminably w/people such as yourself. I’m not the one to have written the sentence, (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible” as if that sentence answers the question as to how rapidly the U.S. could reconfigure its military footprint around the world. The fact you didn’t rebut my points about how many years it took for the Rumsfeld Doctrine to achieve the reduction in force, how the reduction in total number of bases was decided upon, and all the other myriad details about the repositioning of the U.S. military around the world very clearly illustrates you don’t wish to address just how complex the REVERSAL of the Rumsfeld Doctrine would be. It’s not a presto, change-o situation.

            When you trot out your usual randy dandy Communist slurs or the Zoloft/insanity comments or advise me to find another web site where my comments or, better yet, EVEN MYSELF (as a person!) would be more welcome that’s when I know my comments are TRULY APPRECIATED for what they are.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Clearly I don’t feel the need to respond to every delusional rant. If only this point was clear to you.

            “The fact you didn’t rebut my points about how many years it took for the Rumsfeld Doctrine to achieve the reduction in force…”

            And why won’t you cite all of the variables that drive international tea prices? Hmmmm? What’s wrong with you?!

          • Americana

            Your ability to attempt to deflect from the irrational points you make when you’re called on them is beyond compare! I’m not talking about variables that don’t matter when I’m writing about how complex it would be to reconstruct the pre-Rumsfeld U.S. military posture as well as attempt to add even more bases in the Muslim parts of the world. Your following sentence is a HOOT and A HALF. The fact you don’t see that is just you being you. This following sentence is almost one that Jon Stewart would utter as part of his schtick monologue…

            (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            (OFM) “The U.S. military is extremely flexible.”

            You’re saying it’s not? Perhaps you simply can’t follow what people say? Um, yeah.

            See, I don’t give a crap about your opinions. You’re an idiotic communist and apologist for leftist pols. I don’t care of you find things to ramble about that are not dealing with the conversations I’m interested it.

            Get help. Good luck.

          • Americana

            Yes, it’s clear you don’t give a cr*p about my opinions. That’s why you’re always trying to deflect from anything I find flawed in your thinking. However, everyone but you can clearly see that you care about being skewered for such absurd thoughts as your mention of the “U.S. military being flexible” or you wouldn’t attempt to deflect from such thoughts of yours. You see, a good rebuttal is one where ONE DOUBLES DOWN ON ONE’S ORIGINAL THINKING. A bad rebuttal is when you claim the other person is mentally ill… That’s your modus operandi, in spades. I’m not idiotic, I’m not a Communist, and I’m not an apologist. I’m more into explanatory journalism. Read it and weep…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why would anyone give a crap about the opinions of a communist that doesn’t even know she’s a communist? Anyone that quotes the “happiness” clause of the US Constitution to justify funding social programs is a freaking communist.

            Sorry. It is what it is. You are a communist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m more into explanatory journalism.”

            See if you can find explanations for your mental illness. And remember that explaining POV is interesting but not authoritative for anything but that POV…at best.

          • Americana

            You’re showing your true colors w/this post, OFM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not idiotic, I’m not a Communist…”

            Explain capitalism to me. What is it? And what was Marx’s idea about it? How do your views of “capitalism” differ from Marx’s?

          • Americana

            Oh, pleeeeeeeez, give it up already. I bet you’re too afraid to even wear red long underwear in the wintertime even if it’s cheery at 5 a.m.

          • Americana

            Do you even recognize that your entire modus operandi depends on FALSELY ATTRIBUTING YOUR OPINIONS to another person?

            No, I certainly don’t believe subsequent President(s) and the Secretaries of Defense will blindly adhere to what their predecessors have done, but, in the case of an EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and complex reduction in American military forces and the subsequent realignment/redeployment of American BASES and TROOPS around the globe, it’s not very likely that those following Secretaries of Defense will be able to radically change the deployment so as to counter each and every instance of jihadi terrorism.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…it’s not very likely that those following Secretaries of Defense will be able to radically change the deployment so as to counter each and every instance of jihadi terrorism.”

            So first you object to my sarcasm while characterizing your whining and then you employ yet another straw man. See, my sarcasm is in part an attempt to get you to apply more honesty and accuracy to the nuanced discourse. Since you won’t it’s just easier to mock you.

            Basically what you want to do is point out that the past administration was imperfect and concerned about costs. Duh. And then you blow over our concerns with reminders that leaders also have to deal with costs and the reality that things will go wrong no matter how good the planning is. But we’re not complaining because “Oh gosh, something went wrong.” Pay attention to the legitimate points that people make and maybe you’ll establish yourself as someone worth taking seriously.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Americana 7 hours ago: “Do you even recognize that your entire modus operandi depends on FALSELY ATTRIBUTING YOUR OPINIONS to another person?”

            I recognize that you make a lot of false claims.

          • Pete

            “Don’t you dare pair up a post on Benghazi w/comments on Socialists. Do you know how ridiculous that pair-up is?? Try to hold onto some shred of credibility and brains and separate the two things — Socialism and Benghazi ”
            - Americana

            They pair up rather nicely. If a Leftists/socialist president would rather try to reform American into a socialist image and pay scant attention to foreign affairs except to ‘speechify’ and play at armchair general in a dilettane manner, then the two go hand in hand.

          • Americana

            Le Fin.

          • Pete

            “Well, you’re in position to question the stupidity of some of these Benghazi points now. Have at it.”

            Read: I’m ‘spittin’ mad.They are going after Obama!

          • Americana

            Le Fin. Le Fin. Le Fin.

          • Americana

            Ah, another post of mine that has vanished into thin air, I wonder why? Well, now you time and you’ve been brought up to speed on some of the truths about Benghazi, time to start questioning your previously mistaken beliefs about Benghazi. Have at it!

        • Pete

          You will muck up Air Force terminology as well. Go figure!

  • hiernonymous

    For some reason, this did not appear in my feed, so I just found it. Yes, this finding is a bit awkward for the conspiracy theorists.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      No not awkward. It’s expected. It’s just an indication that it will probably (as suspected) take a lot longer to find out what happened. Obviously there is a lot we still don’t know. This is a bullshit report to kick the can down the road possibly for legitimate national security justifications and possibly not.

      Maybe CIA was running guns or doing something else they legitimately need to keep covered. Plausible, no? It’s sad that such possibilities also allowed POTUS to spin it not only for the sake of national security (if that is what happened) but also spin it in favor of his anti-American domestic political agenda. IOW, he lied to get reelected whether or not there were legitimate reasons to cover up other things.

      BTW, what exactly does it mean to you when you label people “conspiracy theorists?” Are those the guys that recognize when there are probably still unknown relevant facts?

      • hiernonymous

        “Are those the guys that recognize when there are probably still unknown relevant facts?”

        Nope. It’s not an obscure term. It generally involves wildly imbalanced credulity and skepticism.

        “This is a bullshit report to kick the can down the road possibly for legitimate national security justifications and possibly not.”

        Do you have a concrete criticism of the report, or do you just not like its conclusions? What, precisely, about the report do you find “bullshit?”

        “It’s sad that such possibilities also allowed POTUS to spin it not only for the sake of national security (if that is what happened) but also spin it in favor of his anti-American domestic political agenda. IOW, he lied to get reelected whether or not there were legitimate reasons to cover up other things.”

        What is it that you contend he lied about?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Do you have a concrete criticism of the report, or do you just not like its conclusions? What, precisely, about the report do you find “bullshit?””

          It’s hardly comprehensive. Other than that I don’t have a problem with the report itself but how it’s being used.

          “What is it that you contend he lied about?”

          He continuously kept trying to spin coverage and manage perceptions to carry on with his “Arab Spring good – AQ decimated” narratives. To a great degree that has not changed.

          Right now people criticize Bush for taking out Hussein but nobody questions the “need” to remove Qaddafi? That’s weird. But it shows how effective the stream of bullshit really is.

          And by the way, I consider both Qaddafi and Hussein to have been relatively rational “Muslim” politicians. We should have left Qaddafi alone. But in the greater scheme of things it’s not so much the details but the continuous direction of empowering and covering for Sunni jihadis.

          I guess I’m a “conspiracy theorist” because I’m skeptical of our political leaders competence and some times their intentions. I understand the need to keep secrets for certain legitimate reasons. Building politically advantageous lies on top of that need is not something I appreciate.

          • hiernonymous

            “He continuously kept trying to spin coverage and manage perceptions to carry on with his “Arab Spring good – AQ decimated” narratives. To a great degree that has not changed.”

            That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?

            “Other than that I don’t have a problem with the report itself but how it’s being used.”

            As in, you object to people treating its conclusions as conclusions?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?”

            Most of it falls under deception through equivocation. We’d have to go back more than two years and examine quite a bit. It’s difficult and rare to catch politicians in outright lies. Any of those related to Benghazi? I can’t remember. Benghazi is just one scandal on a long list. I don’t like the way he handled it, and I consider him one of the most mendacious and incompetent presidents to ever sit in the White House in modern times. But I didn’t really expect that any investigations this soon would uncover anything very useful. It’s possible but not something I was ever counting on.

            At this point the debates trying to suss out the lines between malice and incompetence are not as important as righting the ship. Hopefully that can start soon and then the useful post-mortems will start to emerge in the coming years.

            “As in, you object to people treating its conclusions as conclusions?”

            I object to people that exploit it to distract from other disasters and to people that pretend it answers more than it actually does.

          • hiernonymous

            H: That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?

            OFM: Most of it falls under deception through equivocation.

            H: So no, then.

            “I object to people that exploit it to distract from other disasters and to people that pretend it answers more than it actually does.”

            Well, wait – after years of trying to place Benghazi front and center, you object to it being placed front and center, when the conclusions don’t support the narrative you’d hoped it would? As for “pretend[ing] it answers more than it actually does,” could you give us a for-instance? Who is doing so? Seems like you’re falling into a predictable pattern of reacting to an unpleasant conclusion by dismissing the report as biased, inconclusive, or whatever equivocation makes it seem less damaging. You objected to equivocation not a few lines previously.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “H: So no, then.”

            Mendacity is a better description.

            “Well, wait – after years of trying to place Benghazi front and center, you object to it being placed front and center, when the conclusions don’t support the narrative you’d hoped it would?”

            What? Moi? No. I simply comment as I see it.

            “As for “pretend[ing] it answers more than it actually does,” could you give us a for-instance? Who is doing so?”

            Various people commenting about it have cited it as evidence that Benghazi is no big deal and this shows it’s not a scandal. That’s ridiculous.

            I’m not accusing you. I didn’t even read anything you wrote about it.

            “Seems like you’re falling into a predictable pattern of reacting to an unpleasant conclusion by dismissing the report as biased, inconclusive, or whatever equivocation makes it seem less damaging. You objected to equivocation not a few lines previously.”

            The report is bullshit because it’s not comprehensive and is being used politically. The president is a massively mendacious equivocator. Many political operatives are abusing the report. If I cared a lot more I’d probably go out and show you. But I don’t care as much about Benghazi as I do about a lot of other things. Benghazi is an opportunity to look at how this administration handles risk management and attacks. I’ve said all along that it absolutely does not matter what else we find out. The way the president handled it in his campaign was totally unaccepted and the way that administration operatives handle it is also totally unacceptable. Those a-holes started marching in the streets when Bush gave Hussein the ultimatum. Before it expired. Now these same operatives and their drones want to know why we want answers behind the mendacity even though it’s obvious why they lie for political reasons. People still want to know how deep the problems go.

            It’s mendacious of you to try to take your impressions of diverse conservative positions and use that as a basis for my alleged positions.

            If you’re still confused I’ll review the thread to try to figure out why. I think for you to not show clear sympathy with the people demanding better answers doesn’t speak well about your own bona fides. Perhaps it’s just a knee jerk response to argue with people you’re in the habit of contending with.

            Basically, I know the president lied and then used equivocation to walk some things back after he was confronted. I know his response wast totally inappropriate. The political equivalent of “LOL.” He wants to piss people off. He CLEARLY wants you either with him or against him. IOW, the last thing he wants to do is create an environment where the citizens of this country have rational discussions about his policies and performance. It actually seems like you don’t want that either.

            Frankly I think something is wrong with you when you find it so incredibly difficult to tolerate legitimate criticism of this idiot in the White House. Even if you would not call him an idiot yourself, the fact that you defend him so strenuously shows some kind of defect in your objectivity.

          • hiernonymous

            “Mendacity is a better description.”

            A reflexive one, anyway. It’s a word you seem to be applying to pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with you, lately – that is, the ones you aren’t outright calling “idiot” or “dumbass.” Why do I bring that up? In a moment…

            “Various people commenting about it have cited it as evidence that Benghazi is no big deal and this shows it’s not a scandal. That’s ridiculous.”

            I can’t speak to your vague “various people,” but the comments I’ve seen have appropriately noted that the report shows that Benghazi is not the scandal that was claimed. I’ve noted from the start that the situation certainly seemed to call for review of how we appropriate and allocate security resources for Dept of State, but that the claims that the President just left four people out there to die – and the variations thereon – were unsupported. This report very much contradicts that position, and it’s – shall we say mendacious? – to dig in your heels and suggest that being wrong on those matters is insignificant, since you have a gut feeling that something was wrong.

            “If I cared a lot more I’d probably go out and show you.”

            But you don’t, and you haven’t, and you don’t get credit for having done so.

            “Benghazi is an opportunity to look at how this administration handles risk management and attacks.”

            Let’s not be mendacious. It’s an opportunity to look at how every administration handles risk management and attacks. The remarkable thing about Benghazi is that it was unremarkable, which you’d recognize if you took an honest look at how Department of State has functioned since WWII. The problems exposed at Benghazi were deep-rooted, institutional, and not partisan.

            “It’s mendacious of you to try to take your impressions of diverse conservative positions and use that as a basis for my alleged positions.”

            That’s not really what I did, but it’s interesting that you acknowledge that thought process to be mendacious. You might want to remember that the next time you slip into one of your everyone-is-a-communist diatribes that ascribes Marxist thinking to everyone on this ‘left’ you keep going on about. No, that wasn’t an invitation to go down that rabbit hole again, and if you choose to do so, you can go alone.

            “If you’re still confused I’ll review the thread to try to figure out why. I think for you to not show clear sympathy with the people demanding better answers doesn’t speak well about your own bona fides.”

            That’s terribly interesting. Establish you own bona fides, and perhaps I’ll have a reason to worry about what you think of mine. (And when you’re done with that, then, once more, you can examine your premises to figure out why that was a silly thing to write.)

            “Basically, I know the president lied and then used equivocation to walk some things back after he was confronted.”

            You can’t actually show this, you can’t point to an untruth, and you’ve explicitly admitted you can’t – yet you just know. Sorry, chum, but your gut instincts don’t mean a thing to me. You keep saying that he lied, and you keep squirming when invited to explain how he lied, or what he lied about.

            “IOW, the last thing he wants to do is create an environment where the citizens of this country have rational discussions about his policies and performance. It actually seems like you don’t want that either.”

            You’ve claimed he lied. I asked you for your evidence. You’ve said “I don’t have any, but I just know it.” Sorry, on this topic, you have to improve your game before you get to bloviate about “rational discussions.” What you’re actually doing is emoting.

            “Frankly I think something is wrong with you…”

            Yes, of course you do. It’s something of a pattern lately. When you find yourself unable to provide evidence or support an argument that you clearly plainly and sincerely believe in, you start lashing out at the person you are discussing the matter with. Over the past few weeks, you’ve exhibited less self control than usual, and have begun peppering your posts with all sorts of insults and invective. Here’s a suggestion: learn how to articulate your own position effectively, and you won’t have to take refuge in this type of nonsense.

            “Even if you would not call him an idiot yourself, the fact that you defend him so strenuously shows some kind of defect in your objectivity.”

            Again, you’re emoting, not employing logic. Criticism of defective arguments is not the same thing as “defending him so strenuously.” You seem to assume that if someone takes issue with you over something you’ve said, that person is embracing your ‘enemies.’ That’s paranoid thinking, and if your commitment to ‘rational discussions’ is real, you should probably step back and ask yourself why you find yourself focusing so frequently and inappropriately on the people you are talking to instead of attending to the logic of the topic at hand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You don’t know what mendacious means?

            men·da·cious

            adjective men-ˈdā-shəs

            : not honest : likely to tell lies

            : based on lies

            Some people spread lies with honest intentions. I give people the benefit of any doubt.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            You were proving to be mendacious in trying to discredit the 97% consensus.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I can’t speak to your vague “various people,” but the comments I’ve seen have appropriately noted that the report shows that Benghazi is not the scandal that was claimed.”

            How is that? Which claim? How can a narrow report answer comprehensively what didn’t happen? Especially when there is a high probability that the report may be using at least some deception for national security reasons. How is this report meaningful other than checking off a list of responsibility to report according to the laws of the republic? We can say, well they met that obligation. That’s about it. I don’t see that it resolved any controversy. None that I’m aware of.

            I did help people understand the various ways that complicated operations can experience orders that cause delays. What else? Is that the big controversy as you see it, that if there is a delay, POTUS is ipso facto culpable? That’s not it. That’s yet another mendacious straw man. I guess a few idiots might utter criticism that can be understood that way, but that’s intellectually weak and dishonest to cull the discourse to look for the lowest common denominator to attack.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ve noted from the start that the situation certainly seemed to call for review of how we appropriate and allocate security resources for Dept of State, but that the claims that the President just left four people out there to die – and the variations thereon – were unsupported.”

            I’m not even sure what it means in literal terms to “let people die” so how can we test the theory as you articulate it? We don’t know what his options were or his decision matrix. They’re dead. I still think there were resources and options that he did not employ. Why not send a flight of F16s from Aviano? I heard the excuses. I think I know how that went. I takes X number of hours to prepare for mission type A. But mission type A was not the only option. Just getting a few jets down there even if only to buzz them in a “show of force” would have been positive for us. But that’s the perspective of a nationalist.

            POTUS does not believe in showing force. His entire orientation is to do things bass ackwards if he even has any intention at all to be effective. I’ll allow that he might want to be effective based on some worldview that does not place America as his first priority.

            Anyway, I’ll need a sample of someone’s specific claim that was directly refuted by the report before I know what you’re talking about. All I see is that some of the semantics (what is “stand down” versus “wait” or some similar message short of “return to base”) have been cleared up. Sort of.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m not even sure what it means in literal terms to “let people die” so how can we test the theory as you articulate it?”

            Here’s what Vadum had to say on FPM:

            At the time of the attack, the Obama White House made a conscious, calculated decision to let American officials perish overseas, fully expecting the incurious pro-Obama media to ignore what really happened.

            The report quite clearly contradicts the claim that there was a conscious, calculated decision to let American officials perish.

            Mr. Vadum also offered this gem in another FPM piece :

            During the attack, U.S. forces were in place in nearby Sicily, an hour or so away by air, but the order to fly to Benghazi in an attempt to rescue the besieged staff at the complex never came. That order was never issued by President Obama, because he knew it would reveal his policy of appeasement towards Islamic totalitarians to be in shambles as the Middle East and North Africa fell into the hands of America’s enemies.

            Finding #10 of the report specifically addresses the matter of the use of available military assets.

            ” I still think there were resources and options that he did not employ. ”

            What’s your opinion on the matter worth? What assets and options do you specifically know were available and were not used? The intelligence committee satisfied itself that there were none such – what, specifically, do you contend was overlooked?

            One trusts that your response will not be as, well, frankly stupid as flying a couple of fast-movers over the city because it would be some vague “positive.” What “positive” do you contend that a couple of unfocused, missionless F-16′s buzzing over Benghazi might have accomplished? Is it your measured military opinion that it would have frightened the militias into dispersing? Are you suggesting that they might have dropped some ordnance on the city and that there was some non-zero chance that we might have got lucky with where it landed? Do you, in fact, have even the vaguest notion of what you’re talking about, or do you just have a vague sense of dissatisfaction, a conviction that there was something we could have done, and you’ve confused that conviction with “objective facts?” Or did your “perspective of a nationalist” caveat translate into “it wouldn’t have changed the outcome one iota, but by golly we’d have shown the flag” – because the terrorists, or the residents of Benghazi, or some other unidentified audience would have been suitably impressed by a visible expression of military impotence?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            article: “At the time of the attack, the Obama White House made a conscious, calculated decision to let American officials perish overseas, fully expecting the incurious pro-Obama media to ignore what really happened.”

            You: “The report quite clearly contradicts the claim that there was a conscious, calculated decision to let American officials perish.”

            The report clearly does not deal with the entire chain of command. It is not comprehensive. Maybe you’re reading the accusation wrong. The accusation isn’t that 0′Bama got excited about watching Americans get killed in realtime. The accusation is that his policies and approach follow a principle that makes him the “daddy” of the world and that certain “overreactions” like keeping his “nationalistic” oath of office might be in conflict with his plans to make America “great” by shrinking its stature. Those are the conscious and calculated decisions the critics are referring to.

            Were we that much unprepared? Hegemony shrinkage comes first. Were we worried about perceptions if we used “disproportionate force?” We don’t know yet.

            We don’t know truly what security planning was done, what contingency planning and what realtime decisions were made at the highest levels. If you think you have those answers I just don’t know how to respond. I just know you can’t give them to me. All you can do is express confidence that YOU know what happened and it’s no big whoop.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What’s your opinion on the matter worth? What assets and options do you specifically know were available and were not used? The intelligence committee satisfied itself that there were none such – what, specifically, do you contend was overlooked?”

            I’ve said that I don’t know precisely what was going on. I know enough about our capabilities to know that there are unanswered questions. I’ve said all along that it might not be lawful or appropriate to release a comprehensive report. I already gave you a very specific example that at the very least we should have had F16s available to arrive on scene within a few hours even if they weren’t immediately ready to scramble from Aviano. And the specific explanations for ruling that out don’t make sense without reading between the lines. And that’s all we have right now. That’s not worth much to you or to me.

            And if, all things considered, we were really that unprepared, what good is that for an answer? No, the scandal is not undone. The scandal has been spun. Again. With your assistance.

            You either agree that America is a big problem in the world that deserves to lose some battles to win the war of losing hegemony, or you’re so enamored with this president that you can’t read the evidence rationally. Perhaps both.

            Again, I’m not saying I can read more than I can. I’m saying that we still don’t have enough evidence in the public domain to say that the scandal is “LOL Meaningless” to quote a certain idiot savant.

            This guy came up with the exact same answer I did a long time ago:

            http://www.frontpagemag.Com/2013/colonel-phil-handley/betrayal-in-benghazi/

            That’s exactly what I said in the first few days after the incident.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ve claimed he lied. I asked you for your evidence. You’ve said, in effect, “I don’t have any, but I just know it.” Sorry, on this topic, you have to improve your game before you get to bloviate about “rational discussions.” What you’re actually doing is emoting.”

            Weird that you don’t actually quote me. I said that he lied and walked it back so that loyal hacks could help him spin it. You want to walk through his quotes and argue? No thanks. He is a liar and nothing he’s said can be proved absolutely as a lie to the satisfaction of the hacks until we have more documentary evidence. Which won’t happen for years if ever. I mean we have hacks today that still claim he never lied about the ACA. Even post-Gruber. We have people that still claim there is no evidence of problems at the IRS. Delusional speech is still protected.

            No thanks. I’ll stand pat for now. I don’t have to “win” every argument to the satisfaction of every loser. It doesn’t work that way.

          • hiernonymous

            “No thanks. I’ll stand pat for now. I don’t have to “win” every argument to the satisfaction of every loser. It doesn’t work that way.”

            Probably wise. It’s not obvious that there was any way it could work, at this point. And calling the other fellow a “loser” is very nearly as satisfying as making sense.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m reminding you that your POV is just that. And you don’t really have any kind of standing to demand things of anyone.

            And I’m asserting that you don’t act in good faith. Therefore your requests will some times be declined.

            Get over it.

          • hiernonymous

            “And you don’t really have any kind of standing to demand things of anyone.”

            And yet, here you are.

            “And I’m asserting that you don’t act in good faith. Therefore your requests will some times be declined.”

            Translation: “I am asserting that I don’t like you. Therefore, I am preparing a face-saving excuse in advance for failing to support my arguments.”

            You needn’t bother. No excuses are necessary. You’ve always had the power to choose not to respond. What you seem to be looking for is a social basis for not responding while getting credit for having done so. That, you don’t get, I’m afraid. And before you go into another tirade, it’s not me that decides you don’t get it – it’s just the nature of logic.

            “Get over it.”

            Tell you what – when I’ve so lost control of myself that I start prefacing my posts with schoolyard insults, we’ll know that I need to get over it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Translation: “I am asserting that I don’t like you. Therefore, I am preparing a face-saving excuse in advance for failing to support my arguments.””

            Nope.

            “You needn’t bother. No excuses are necessary. You’ve always had the power to choose not to respond. What you seem to be looking for is a social basis for not responding while getting credit for having done so. That, you don’t get, I’m afraid. And before you go into another tirade, it’s not me that decides you don’t get it – it’s just the nature of logic.”

            This is a public conversation. If it was just the two of us, and I’m not saying I’ve thought much about how it would be different, but, it would be different.

            “Tell you what – when I’ve so lost control of myself that I start prefacing my posts with schoolyard insults, we’ll know that I need to get over it.”

            Whatever you say, chum.

          • hiernonymous

            chum1
            CHəm/
            informal
            noun
            1.
            a close friend.
            synonyms:friend; More

            verb
            1.
            be friendly to or form a friendship with someone.
            “they started chumming around in high school”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.merriam-webster.Com/dictionary/chum

            3chum noun
            Definition of CHUM
            : animal or vegetable matter (as chopped fish or corn) thrown overboard to attract fish

          • hiernonymous

            Unless I invite you fishing, you shouldn’t have any difficulty figuring out which is appropriate to the conversational context. What an odd thought process you have.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But we’re exploring your hurt feelings. I thought it would help you to understand that people might not appreciate your approach either. A little thicker skin might help you.

          • hiernonymous

            “But we’re exploring your hurt feelings. ”

            How…bizarre. Whatever gave you that idea?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s terribly interesting. Establish you own bona fides, and perhaps I’ll have a reason to worry about what you think of mine. (And when you’re done with that, then, once more, you can examine your premises to figure out why that was a silly thing to write.)”

            You don’t care if people consider you just another (something like) Gruber? OK.

          • hiernonymous

            “You don’t care if people consider you just another…Gruber?”

            It depends on which people, why they believe that, and what they mean by it. If you mean, do I care that you consider me to be just another Gruber, or affect to believe so? Not in the least.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s clear to everyone. It was merely a rhetorical question.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s clear to everyone.”

            Are we now retreating to speaking for the multitudes? That’s usually a sign that one is uncertain of one’s own position.

            “It was merely a rhetorical question.”

            And it got answered. That happens with questions sometimes.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Are we now retreating to speaking for the multitudes? That’s usually a sign that one is uncertain of one’s own position.”

            So you say. So you’re clairvoyant and able to speak even for me, but I’m unable to speak for anyone but myself. Inconsistent are we?

          • hiernonymous

            “So you’re clairvoyant and able to speak even for me…”

            I read your posts, if that’s what you mean.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you’re not clairvoyant you should stick to direct quotes rather than paraphrases. Good faith actors generally have more permission for that kind of creative expression.

          • hiernonymous

            Nonsense. Paraphrasing is an excellent tool for expressing interpretation. It aids in communication by restating the message received. It helps you by letting you know how your message is coming across and allowing you to recalibrate, if necessary.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You can’t actually show this, you can’t point to an untruth, and you’ve explicitly admitted you can’t – yet you just know. Sorry, chum, but your gut instincts don’t mean a thing to me. You keep saying that he lied, and you keep squirming when invited to explain how he lied, or what he lied about.”

            You want to step through the timeline of what he said? Really? OK “chum.” You post all of his quotes from the time of the Benghazi attacks, in chronological order (in any quantity you want, just stick to the timeline) and I’ll respond as you post them. I’m game. But I’m not going to do all of the work just so you continue to help with DP spin. See, I’ve already commented. You want a rehash, you do the background work.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You’ve claimed he lied. I asked you for your evidence. You’ve said, in effect, “I don’t have any, but I just know it.” Sorry, on this topic, you have to improve your game before you get to bloviate about “rational discussions.” What you’re actually doing is emoting.”

            Oh, now it’s “in effect.” See, now you’re equivocating too. You have no authority here. You want something, you have to persuade people to cooperate.

          • hiernonymous

            “Oh, now it’s “in effect.” See, now you’re equivocating too.”

            No, I’m paraphrasing. There’s nothing equivocal about it: you claimed that he lied, I asked you what he lied about, and in the nine (!) responses you’ve so far posted to my last comment, you have yet to substantiate that claim. If you object to paraphrasing, here is the direct quote: “IOW, he lied to get reelected whether or not there were legitimate reasons to cover up other things.”

            Rather than follow you into nine independent tangents, I’ll just say this: you made the claim, it’s yours to substantiate. Challenging this claim is not “defending” the president, it’s demanding that you state precisely what you mean and your evidence therefor. Once you’ve done that, it’s possible to evaluate your claim and form an opinion.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And if I show you something he lied about, what will you do then?

          • hiernonymous

            What will I do? I will have some clearer idea of what you’re on about. I’ll have a basis for evaluating your claim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re the only one that “needs” (demands) convincing. But you don’t actually want to be convinced and you’re not open to it.

            In the marketplace of ideas there is give and take and a kind of hidden economy comprised of transactions in various conversations. The value you offer isn’t always as much as some of the buyers are looking for. So sometimes the transaction is declined.

            You can bicker and whine or you can wonder if your own interests are served better by offering better value to the marketplace.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Challenging this claim is not “defending” the president..”

            Yes it is because over time all you ever do is make it difficult for people to converse by challenging things rather than looking on your own. You’re a homer but you won’t admit it.

            If it happened in a balanced way then no, it’s not necessarily “defending” him. But your patterns unquestionably reveal your bias. And you deny your bias when called on it.

            All you’ve ever indicated was that you more or less agree that American hegemony should shrink for the good of America. OK, I disagree. We can move on. Next we have matters of evaluating competence. But you don’t want to go there even after 6 years of this president and ~ 1 year of you “challenging” his critics with the same bias the whole time.

            I think you once allowed that he’s not perfect. Wow. Add to that the fact that you think conservatives are a problem because of “jingoism” and “Orwellian nationalism” and “we” have an agenda that you try to hide. You even expressed concern a long time ago that the conservatives are more or less like Nawzis because…nationalism…even though they’re out of power and restrained by a constitution…that they support! So they support their own restraints. The other party is the one they oppose- that is in power – for demonizing “The Jews” and “the one percent” (who are proxies for Jews until the blood starts to flow) and what you have are biases that you can’t actually defend. So you stopped trying and instead shifted to the guy that just wants to sift through the facts to make sure the critics have good spelling and grammar and can recite the evidence every time you demand it.

            It gets a little old. Keep voting for your team and defending…I mean…demanding full reconciliation of criticism on behalf of the DP and their agenda.

            Now what I originally said was that the report is not comprehensive and does not address much if any of the what people are concerned about. At least what I am concerned about. And you just reiterated that you think this report significantly deflates the criticism and valid concerns raised?

            OK. Now I know a little more about you.

          • hiernonymous

            “Yes it is because over time all you ever do is make it difficult for people to converse by challenging things rather than looking on your own.”

            Yes, if all of the commentary on a particular site is aimed in a particular direction, then challenging the logic of that commentary is going to appear equally biased. It’s inevitable.

            But you misunderstand – I’ve made no claims about objectivity or lack of bias – that’s your schtick (note the nick you picked). My bias isn’t what you assume it is, but that’s neither here nor there. What you continue to do is attempt to deflect and attempt to make the topic about your opponent. It’s logically empty.

            “…the guy that just wants to sift through the facts to make sure the critics have good spelling and grammar and can recite the evidence every time you demand it.”

            Because objective facts matter, right? It’s not a question of “recite the evidence every time [I] demand it” – it’s a question of being able to support what you claim every time you make a claim. It’s fascinating that you find that so outrageous.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Because objective facts matter, right? It’s not a question of “recite the evidence every time [I] demand it” – it’s a question of being able to support what you claim every time you make a claim. It’s fascinating that you find that so outrageous.”

            It’s not outrageous to have good faith conversations. My complaint is that you’re not acting in good faith. We’re generally having “progressive” conversations here and we don’t really need a gadfly to come and demand that we meet its expectations. Unless someone has a good enough reason to care about your agenda. It is what it is.

            After a time patterns of behavior matter. You don’t set the standards here. All you can do is ask. People will judge you by what they know about you.

          • hiernonymous

            “You don’t set the standards here.”

            Too true I don’t. The standards already exist. I point out when you are not meeting them. Your apparent loose attitude toward intellectual rigor is at odds with the rather presumptuous nom de net you selected. When you choose make a claim in public, you should expect public response. It’s infantile to expect a mutual admiration society- that is what private clubs and closed Internet forums are for. When I challenge a claim as unsubstantiated, I have done all I set out to do: to wit, to point out that the .claim is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. If I challenge a claim as incorrect, and offer sound reason and evidence, if appropriate, I have also done all I set out to do.

            You have four choices of response. You can ignore my post entirely – you have said what you wanted to say, I said what I wanted to say, and you think that the criticism is so lacking in merit that no response is called for. Second, you can improve or refine the original post to meet the criticism. This often involves identifying evidence for an assertion, and should be easy to do if you made the assertion with evidence in mind. Third, you can defend, pointing out why the criticism itself is rooted in poor logic, a misunderstanding of the original post, and so on. Or you can depart the path of rational discussion altogether, by diverting, digressing, attacking the other person, engaging in ad hom or other fallacies, and otherwise substituting spleen for reason. Justifying the last course of action by suggesting that the other isn’t winning friends and influencing people by being so disagreeable is simply offering an excuse for sloppy thinking. You can choose to do so, but may I recommend that you revise your nick before it becomes too painfully ironic?

            You will find that “good faith” does not consist in a willingness to conform to or ingratiate oneself with sloppy thinking. I have many enjoyable and productive exchanges on these forums over time, and am always happy to have them, but I am not here to persuade you to be my friend. I’m pretty selective about those.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Too true I don’t. The standards already exist. I point out when you are not meeting them. Your apparent loose attitude toward intellectual rigor is at odds with the rather presumptuous nom de net you selected.”

            Look dumbass,

            You don’t regulate the flow of any conversation. If you want to make requests for people to repeat things that have been discussed your going to have to try to get people care more about those requests for whatever reason.

            Right now it’s like this: You get to say “But…you didn’t back up your point” and I say that I have already many times and the people that act in good faith here haven’t asked me to repeat myself recently.

            Clear enough yet?

          • hiernonymous

            “Look dumbass”

            Oh, dear.

            “You don’t regulate the flow of any conversation.”

            Who has suggested otherwise? I find this a fascinating complaint.

            “If you want to make requests for people to repeat things that have been discussed your going to have to try to get people care more about those requests for whatever reason.”

            Here is where your understanding of the conversations departs from reality. I’m not interested in persuading you to conform to any sort of behavioral expectation. I’m not asking you for any favors that are yours to bestow or withhold, and it’s all one to me which rhetorical path forward you choose. I’m more than happy to point out the logical consequences of some of those choices, and that seems to upset you. I can live with that.

            “Right now it’s like this: You get to say “But…you didn’t back up your point” and I say that I have already many times and the people that act in good faith here haven’t asked me to repeat myself recently.”

            Right, and I get to point out that asserting that you’ve already supported your point is not the same thing as supporting your point. I also get to point out that while the fact that you characterize the people you find agreeable as posting in “good faith” may actually mean something to you, but it’s rhetorically empty nonsense. And, frankly, what may have satisfied the sort of uncritical correspondent who earns your “good faith” seal of approval is unlikely to have been terribly rigorous.

            “Clear enough yet?”

            I don’t think that you’ve revealed anything here that wasn’t already clear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I also get to point out that while the fact that you characterize the people you find agreeable as posting in “good faith” may actually mean something to you, but it’s rhetorically empty nonsense.”

            This is a public forum. There are plenty of people I disagree with that I consider are acting in good faith. Some times I think you are too. When you’re not, I say so.

            No, it’s not empty nonsense. You don’t like it.

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.Com/good+faith

            Good Faith

            Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

            Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

            The term good faith is used in many areas of the law but has special significance in Commercial Law. A good faith purchaser for value is protected by the Uniform Commercial Code, which every state has adopted. Under sections 1-201(9) and 2-403 of the code, a merchant may keep possession of goods that were bought from a seller who did not have title to the goods, if the merchant can show he or she was a good faith purchaser for value. To meet this test, the person must be a merchant, must have demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the transaction concerned, and must have observed reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade. A buyer would likely meet these requirements if the purchase proceeded in the ordinary course of business. If, on the other hand, the purchase took place under unusual or suspicious circumstances, a court might conclude that the buyer lacked good faith.

            Where a nonmerchant purchases property that the seller lacks legal title to convey, the issue of good faith is known both as the innocent purchaser doctrine and as the bona fide purchaser doctrine. If the purchaser acquires the property by an honest contractor agreement and without knowledge of any defect in the title of the seller, or means of knowledge sufficient to charge the buyer with such knowledge, the purchaser is deemed innocent.

            In both commercial and noncommercial law, persons who in good faith pay a fraudulent seller valuable consideration for property are protected from another person who claims legal title to the property. If a court establishes the purchaser’s good faith defense,the person who claims title has recourse only against the fraudulent seller. Strong public policy is behind the good faith defense.Good faith doctrines enhance the flow of goods in commerce, as under them, buyers are not required, in the ordinary course of business, to go to extraordinary efforts to determine whether sellers actually have good title. A purchaser can move quickly to close a deal with the knowledge that a fraudulent seller and a legitimate titleholder will have to sort the issue out in court. Of course, the purchaser will be required to demonstrate to the court evidence of good faith.

          • hiernonymous

            I believe you posted something about clairvoyance recently. And something else about consistency?

            Yes, asserting – in the context of our conversations – that I am not acting in good faith is rhetorically empty nonsense. You’re assuming a motivation that you have no way of knowing, and asserting same as a form of ad hom, as it’s explicitly offered in lieu of an argument.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “My bias isn’t what you assume it is, but that’s neither here nor there.”

            Yeah, IFF is BS.

          • hiernonymous

            IFF is used to prevent one from accidentally firing on one’s own forces in the heat and confusion of combat. So, yes, in the context of rational discussion in a public forum, IFF is BS to all but the most rabid ideologues.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            No, you’re a foe and a time-waster. Therefore your demands and requests will be placed in the context of those determinations.

          • hiernonymous

            You don’t need to make such elaborate excuses for not answering questions. As a rule, unless you’ve said something personally libelous or slanderous, you don’t owe me any sort of explanation if you don’t want to answer.

            It’s interesting, though, that you sought out conversation with me, and now feel so trapped by that decision that you have to come up with such elaborate rationalizations for extricating yourself. If you don’t enjoy the conversation, just don’t post.

            Silly lad.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You don’t need to make such elaborate excuses for not answering questions. As a rule, unless you’ve said something personally libelous or slanderous, you don’t owe me any sort of explanation if you don’t want to answer.”

            I don’t go by your rules. I go by my own rules for who, what, when, why and how. And my comment stream is not blocked. So there’s that too.

            “It’s interesting, though, that you sought out conversation with me, and now feel so trapped by that decision that you have to come up with such elaborate rationalizations for extricating yourself. If you don’t enjoy the conversation, just don’t post.”

            It’s interesting that you presume to know my motives and feelings.

            So according to you, the big controversy is that I won’t review the president’s lies of the past 24 months? And you’ve been reading here for how long and following my account for how long is it? And when you say jump, your rules say I must what?

          • hiernonymous

            Why, no. You asserted that the president had lied, I asked you what he had lied about, and you’ve spent the subsequent posts in agonies of digression and diversion rather than supporting your statement. It’s not so hard.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Is it your position that this president hasn’t been caught lying? Or just that he hasn’t been caught lying about Benghazi?

          • hiernonymous

            My position is that when you’ve explained what lies you’re talking about, we’ll have a basis for proceeding with the conversation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I recently referred directly to lies about Benghazi. I then clarified that his lies were walked back with equivocation when they backfired. Therefore they can be defended by apologists. If I’m talking with someone trustworthy >in god faith< it might be worth running through the timeline for a recap. If I'm talking with a partisan hack, I'm not interested in rehashing the facts and the TPM.

            The larger point is, as I've said all along, that Benghazi is serious for a number of reasons but as the other serious scandals came to light it naturally had to fade in relative importance. This political compromise of a report is not a win for anyone. It's a punt for both parties. It's relatively small potatoes now.

            And that's why I think your summary of my alleged position on Benghazi was absurd. You asserted that I supported RP focus on this above all else. I never once held that position. And as other scandals come up, I don't support continued focus unless there is substantial evidence that can be publicized. Evidently there is not. Not right now.

            Number 1 is IRS. Number 2 is probably border control with immigration policies, number 3 is the ACA, number 4 is energy and environment policies. There might even be some that I'm forgetting at the moment that are still higher than Benghazi. Oh yeah. ISIS in Iraq, Iran, etc.

            Not only that, but just the process of demanding answers is a step forward. The discourse has shifted towards putting the administration on the defensive where it belongs. I'm not unhappy with the trends. I'm unhappy with the leftist hacks.

          • hiernonymous

            ” If I’m talking with a partisan hack, I’m not interested in rehashing the facts and the TPM.”

            And that’s fine. As I’ve said, you can post to whom you wish; the only problem is when you expect your assertion to mean anything in the absence of your interest in supporting it.

            In this case, you made an assertion about Benghazi related lies; when asked to elaborate, you’ve declined to do so; and I conclude, in the context of this conversation, that you have nothing meaningful to say on the matter and that it should be considered moot. That’s fine.

            “You asserted that I supported RP focus on this above all else.”

            Refresh my memory – where did I assert that? I don’t recall being particularly concerned with your individual take, but it’s possible that I wrote something that could be taken that way. What post of mine are you talking about?

            “Not only that, but just the process of demanding answers is a step forward.”

            You see?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You see?”

            Obviously I do. Obviously I’m employing IFF and making adjustments.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Refresh my memory – where did I assert that? I don’t recall being particularly concerned withyour individual take, but it’s possible that I wrote something that could be taken that way. What post of mine are you talking about?”

            I see. That’s actually what got me started here. It was maybe the first or second comment you made to me on the page where we started discussing the report. I don’t recall which article. Maybe this one but maybe another on FPM. Maybe I’ll look for it later.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 2 days ago: “Well, wait – after years of trying to place Benghazi front and center, you object to it being placed front and center, when the conclusions don’t support the narrative you’d hoped it would?”

          • hiernonymous

            ” That’s actually what got me started here. ”

            No, it’s not. That’s mendacious. What got you going here was your response to a comment I made to Americana about the report being a bit awkward. You’d made three long posts already before I wrote that. This may seem a bit picky, but if you’re going to try to parse my comment – in which I note that after long complaints that Benghazi wasn’t getting enough attention, it was now getting some – then we’re going to have to treat your own comments with the same precision.

            When I wrote that, I was actually approaching it as a collective “you,” but you have certainly endorsed that position in the past. Here’s a comment you made in August 2013:

            objectivefactsmatter EarlyBird • a year ago

            Just another phony scandal, like Benghazi, IRS, the 5th columnist rodeo clown, etc.

            It’s probably related to Benghazi, so yeah, just another fake scandal with fake weapons and fake CIA agents all being trivialized and ignored by a fake clown president.

            Plainly, you objected to the ‘trivialization’ of the Benghazi scandal.

            This thread contains some of your contentions about what the president did.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Chum,

            There is a world of difference between saying that I want to know more and that I resent the evasion and saying that it’s the highest (or even the close to the highest) priority.

            And I think you’re getting the quotes mixed up. let me look .

            Almost a year and a half ago:

            Article title: Muslim Brotherhood Leader’s Son Claims MB is Blackmailing Obama with “Evidence That Could Put Him in Prison”

            OP:
            EarlyBird • a year ago: “It’s just amazing the irresponsible trash this “conservative” site purveys. This particular piece of dreck makes the National Inquirer look like a serious new organization. No wonder Horowitz handed this assignment to Danny “Goebbels” Greenfield. It fits him perfectly.”

            “This idiocy is the face of “conservatism” today. And Republicans why they are continuing to lose ground to Democrats. “It’s cuz dem damm librul media and the commies and leftists! It’s a conSPYracy!””

            My response :

            objectivefactsmatter EarlyBird • a year ago: “Just another phony scandal, like Benghazi, IRS, the 5th columnist rodeo clown, etc. It’s probably related to Benghazi, so yeah, just another fake scandal with fake weapons and fake CIA agents all being trivialized and ignored by a fake clown president.”

            ———–

            And returning to November 2014:

            You read that how? How does that offer any insight about my expectations, my wishes about priorities and so forth? Should I list the scandals that came out between then and today? ACA launch and all of the other related absurdities, “lost” hard drives…lol denial about email server backups…”what’s that?” and on and on.

            I never claimed that I had no comments on Benghazi. Aren’t you trying to prove that I first promoted a bunch of absurd conspiracy theories and expected to have all of the dirt come out and then ran from it when this “comprehensive” report came instead that exonerates everyone associated with this president? Was it “front and center” you said? I realize that’s a paraphrase but I still don’t’ see what you’re getting at.

            You’re the one pushing fantasies. I just smart off some times.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No, it’s not. That’s mendacious. What got you going here was your response to a comment I made to Americana about the report being a bit awkward. You’d made three long posts already before I wrote that.”

            On which thread?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            hiernonymous 12 minutes ago: ” That’s actually what got me started here. ”

            “No, it’s not. That’s mendacious. What got you going here was your response to a comment I made to Americana about the report being a bit awkward. You’d made three long posts already before I wrote that.”

            Let me be more precise for you: That’s what got me started here on you. Is THAT controversial as a statement?

            “When I wrote that, I was actually approaching it as a collective “you,” but you have certainly endorsed that position in the past.”

            Front and center? Sorry. Very flat. You’re relying on gut or faulty memory. The most intense comments I ever made were only “intense” when amplified by sarcasm. I never promoted the idea that Congress should hold anyone accountable beyond the normal procedures. I didn’t expect it to go anywhere. If I expressed any hope on a positive outcome it was the hope that a whistle blower would come forward.

            Or I might have said we’ll see what they get when Congress did start escalating it. I didn’t speak for or against Congress adjusting its priorities on Benghazi. I say again that my only real hope was from one or more whistle-blowers in a position to fill significant holes in the narratives. I doubt it will happen any time soon. it could though. I know some people but so far nobody with direct information. We’ll just see.

            The only “hope” I have related to Congressional Republicans is taking seats away from communists. They did OK a few weeks ago. My mood is relatively good.

          • hiernonymous

            Let me be more precise for you: That’s what got me started here on you. Is THAT controversial as a statement?

            I don’t know about controversial, but it isn’t true.

            Here’s the chain of posts, beginning with your response to my comment to Americana. Let me add up front that I’m not terribly interested in your particular opinion of Benghazi, or in the nuances of how it differs from that of Vadum and other FPM contributors.

            objectivefactsmatter hiernonymous • 3 days ago

            No not awkward. It’s expected. It’s just an indication that it will probably (as suspected) take a lot longer to find out what happened. Obviously there is a lot we still don’t know. This is a bullshit report to kick the can down the road possibly for legitimate national security justifications and possibly not.

            Maybe CIA was running guns or doing something else they legitimately need to keep covered. Plausible, no? It’s sad that such possibilities also allowed POTUS to spin it not only for the sake of national security (if that is what happened) but also spin it in favor of his anti-American domestic political agenda. IOW, he lied to get reelected whether or not there were legitimate reasons to cover up other things.

            BTW, what exactly does it mean to you when you label people “conspiracy theorists?” Are those the guys that recognize when there are probably still unknown relevant facts?

            Reply

            Share ›

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 3 days ago

            “Are those the guys that recognize when there are probably still unknown relevant facts?”

            Nope. It’s not an obscure term. It generally involves wildly imbalanced credulity and skepticism.

            “This is a bullshit report to kick the can down the road possibly for legitimate national security justifications and possibly not.”

            Do you have a concrete criticism of the report, or do you just not like its conclusions? What, precisely, about the report do you find “bullshit?”

            “It’s sad that such possibilities also allowed POTUS to spin it not only for the sake of national security (if that is what happened) but also spin it in favor of his anti-American domestic political agenda. IOW, he lied to get reelected whether or not there were legitimate reasons to cover up other things.”

            What is it that you contend he lied about?

            Edit

            Reply

            Share ›

            objectivefactsmatter hiernonymous • 3 days ago

            “Do you have a concrete criticism of the report, or do you just not like its conclusions? What, precisely, about the report do you find “bullshit?””

            It’s hardly comprehensive. Other than that I don’t have a problem with the report itself but how it’s being used.

            “What is it that you contend he lied about?”

            He continuously kept trying to spin coverage and manage perceptions to carry on with his “Arab Spring good – AQ decimated” narratives. To a great degree that has not changed.

            Right now people criticize Bush for taking out Hussein but nobody questions the “need” to remove Qaddafi? That’s weird. But it shows how effective the stream of bullshit really is.

            And by the way, I consider both Qaddafi and Hussein to have been relatively rational “Muslim” politicians. We should have left Qaddafi alone. But in the greater scheme of things it’s not so much the details but the continuous direction of empowering and covering for Sunni jihadis.

            I guess I’m a “conspiracy theorist” because I’m skeptical of our political leaders competence and some times their intentions. I understand the need to keep secrets for certain legitimate reasons. Building politically advantageous lies on top of that need is not something I appreciate.see more

            Reply

            Share ›

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 3 days ago

            “He continuously kept trying to spin coverage and manage perceptions to carry on with his “Arab Spring good – AQ decimated” narratives. To a great degree that has not changed.”

            That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?

            “Other than that I don’t have a problem with the report itself but how it’s being used.”

            As in, you object to people treating its conclusions as conclusions?

            Edit

            Reply

            Share ›

            objectivefactsmatter hiernonymous • 3 days ago

            “That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?”

            Most of it falls under deception through equivocation. We’d have to go back more than two years and examine quite a bit. It’s difficult and rare to catch politicians in outright lies. Any of those related to Benghazi? I can’t remember. Benghazi is just one scandal on a long list. I don’t like the way he handled it, and I consider him one of the most mendacious and incompetent presidents to ever sit in the White House in modern times. But I didn’t really expect that any investigations this soon would uncover anything very useful. It’s possible but not something I was ever counting on.

            At this point the debates trying to suss out the lines between malice and incompetence are not as important as righting the ship. Hopefully that can start soon and then the useful post-mortems will start to emerge in the coming years.

            “As in, you object to people treating its conclusions as conclusions?”

            I object to people that exploit it to distract from other disasters and to people that pretend it answers more than it actually does.

            Reply

            Share ›

            hiernonymous objectivefactsmatter • 2 days ago

            H: That’s remarkably vague. Could you give a concrete example of a couple of these lies?

            OFM: Most of it falls under deception through equivocation.

            H: So no, then.

            “I object to people that exploit it to distract from other disasters and to people that pretend it answers more than it actually does.”

            Well, wait – after years of trying to place Benghazi front and center, you object to it being placed front and center, when the conclusions don’t support the narrative you’d hoped it would? As for “pretend[ing] it answers more than it actually does,” could you give us a for-instance? Who is doing so? Seems like you’re falling into a predictable pattern of reacting to an unpleasant conclusion by dismissing the report as biased, inconclusive, or whatever equivocation makes it seem less damaging. You objected to equivocation not a few lines previously.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m sorry, I just don’t get what your point is. If you don’t understand what I mean by “get started” you should ask for clarification rather than paste “proof” of earlier conversations. How long have you been attacking Daniel at FPM? That’s when it “started” but when it really started was when you “innocently” accused the “royal you” (me) of positions I never held.

            Not that it really matters. It’s just interesting to see how far you’ll go to make weird points about dangerous jingoism and stealth bigotry and so forth. I think a lot of the evidence is read between the lines by you. And at least some of the time it only exists in your mind.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You objected to equivocation not a few lines previously.”

            Avoiding commitment is some times acceptable. What’s wrong with you? I’m not make a freaking speech trying to convince some people I’m tough on Islamic terror and other people that I’m tough on “blasphemy against the prophet of Islam.”

            I can denounce your equivocation if it’s mendacious or if you are accountable to me. I don’t answer to your expectations.

          • hiernonymous

            “What’s wrong with you?”

            An interesting reflex.

            “I can denounce your equivocation if it’s mendacious or if you are accountable to me.”

            As we’ve seen, your denunciations aren’t limited to those two cases. One wonders, though, what sort of withdrawal symptoms you might display if you were denied the use of the word “mendacious” for a few hours.

            ” I don’t answer to your expectations.”

            Of course you do, with every post you make. If you mean that nobody is coercing or can coerce you into doing so, that’s certainly true.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As we’ve seen, your denunciations aren’t limited to those two cases. One wonders, though, what sort of withdrawal symptoms you might display if you were denied the use of the word “mendacious” for a few hours.”

            Again, you learned the wrong lessons from Orwell.

            “Of course you do, with every post you make. If you mean that nobody is coercing or can coerce you into doing so, that’s certainly true.”

            If your expectations coincide with mine that’s OK. If not…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Let me add up front that I’m not terribly interested in your particular opinion of Benghazi, or in the nuances of how it differs from that of Vadum and other FPM contributors.”

            Because you’re a collectivist and you’re never really talking to individuals? If you’re not interested in my views, you’re only interested in attacking the “others” that I represent. OK. So it doesn’t really matter that you accused me of something because someone here is guilty.

            OK. Got it. Thank you for being honest.

          • hiernonymous

            Collectivist? No; you injected yourself into a conversation, and presumably understood the thrust of that conversation.

            “OK. Got it. Thank you for being honest.”

            You might consider it for yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The “collectivist” conversation? If I “presumably understood” that it would make ME a collectivist too and I’m not.

          • hiernonymous

            Understanding a conversation would make you a collectivist? So you are asserting that you maintain your status as a non-collectivist by willful ignorance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Hopefully that’s just weak sarcasm.

          • hiernonymous

            If you found it weak, there is hope for you yet. With a bit of reflection, that insight will serve you well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Thank you. I sense you’re more in need of hope so go ahead and keep it.

            So where were we?

            We’re discussing my lexicon, my abuse of poor innocent well-intentioned atheists, my “mendacity” and my attitude? Is that about right? And then you can sort of categorize your various complaints under those headings. Like for instance my xenophobia would fall under…OK…new category…psychiatric problems.

            You don’t like being confronted. You have a theory that I’m a xenophobic “Orwellian Nationalist” (jingoist) that deviates from the approved academic lexicon. Right?

            And furthermore, my exhortations will probably lead “Christianist” conservatives to burn the US Constitution while claiming to restore it in order to install, naturally, a Christian theocracy. We will then read from the Old Testament to incite people all over the world to, like Joshua, kill all non-sharia Christians.

            And not only that. I’m rude.

            Problematic terms:

            Communist
            Marxist or neo-Marxist
            Critical Theory
            Immaculate conception of Jesus (even with scare quotes)
            Flaw or flawed
            Collectivist or collectivism
            Imperfect is probably out as well
            How could I nearly forget mendacious?
            And using alternate characters to spell the 44th US president’s name.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, my. You keep a list of perceived slights.

            Who doesn’t like being confronted, again?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m just helping you with a mirror. Personally I don’t care.

            You think I keep a list? I just have a good memory. That was straight off the top of my head and I find you amusing. I think it’s laughable what you do without making any effort to show you learn from your mistakes.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m just helping you with a mirror. Personally I don’t care.”

            Of course. And of course not.

            “I find you amusing.”

            Good for you!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The beauty of collectivism is that it’s always the other guys fault. On the other hand it “kind of” (definitely) leads to destructive ideas.

          • hiernonymous

            “The beauty of collectivism is that it’s always the other guys fault.”

            That’s one of its beauties. Another is that it can serve as an all-purpose bugbear and crutch rolled into one. It serves you admirably as an excuse for sloppy thinking.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Another is that it can serve as an all-purpose bugbear and crutch rolled into one.”

            How so? I thought collectivism was when arrogant people tried to interact with people collectively and plan things without consideration for individual…humans? How do >you< use it beyond that?

            I don't need reverse panaceas but I'm interested in your theory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            In case you’re not aware:

            Full Definition of COLLECTIVISM

            1

            : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

            2

            : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

            http://freedomkeys.Com/collectivism.htm

            COLLECTIVISM

            “COLLECTIVISM: Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals.” — Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher, HERE

            “collectivism … treats society as if it were a super-organism existing over and above its individual members, and which takes the collective in some form (e.g., tribe, race, or state) to be the primary unit of reality and standard of value.” — Prof. Fred D. Miller HERE

            “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ‘the common good’.” — Ayn Rand,HERE

            “Collectivism is a form of anthropomorphism. It attempts to see a group of individuals as having a single identity similar to a person. … Collectivism demands that the group be more important than the individual. It requires the individual to sacrifice himself for the alleged good of the group.” — Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands

            Follow the URL for more:

            http://freedomkeys.Com/collectivism.htm

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            “Thoughtful analysis by buzzword: OFM’s MO. Your patience is admirable if somewhat confounding.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            hiernonymous an hour ago: “This thread contains some of your contentions about what the president did.”

            And here are a few (IMO the relevant) samples:

            #1

            objectivefactsmatter Jeff Brown • a year ago:> “The claim that the Obama administration did not mobilize military assets in response to the attacks on the Benghazi consulate is a proven lie.”

            Me: “Pawns were moved. What they didn’t do was defend our sovereignty and our interests. The embassy was sacrificed while 0′Bame was worried entirely about political “optics.” There were a number of obvious options that were not employed. That’s the claim, and that’s not a lie.”

            Me in 11/20114-Referring to lack of any kind of armed Air Force response or “show of force.”

            #2

            objectivefactsmatter Jeff Brown • a year ago: “From the article: “Obama chose not to allow armed force to be used to save diplomats under attack.”

            (My support of the article’s statement): “Armed forces were “used” because they’re already in the field with protocols to follow. They didn’t vanish in to thin air. They were not employed or “used” to “save diplomats under attack.” They were kept busy and you report this business as contradicting the statement that they were not used to protect the diplomats.”

            -IOW, yes there were reactions that remind me of the Keystone Cops. My analysis reads all of this as indicating that 0′Bama uses exactly the same kind of approach in Libya as everywhere else where if America looks too strong we’ll just cause more blowback. Better to look like a victim. Better to look weak so that people won’t resent our wealth and power. Better to look “fair” rather than like people that want to win all the time. Who likes a nation that always wants to win their wars? You end up like those oppressors in the UK…and soon enough…more bad stuff. And stuff. Nobody likes undefeated sports teams. Come on guys. Maslow’s hierarchy, historical materialism, America is ipso facto oppressor of the world because we supposedly dump a lot of food off of cruise ships instead of diverting it to poor countries. Or something. You have to read his books to figure all of that crap out.

            The rest is just my boxing in the idiot when he was trying to create straw men out of what I said and then the last comment from then till today was from me:

            objectivefactsmatter Jeff Brown • a year ago: “Please review the timeline and see if we can stipulate to the Pentagon claims: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/10/world/benghazi-consulate-attack-fast-facts/

            That was the URL I included back then and the guy never got back to me. I was looking for common ground to make sure he understood. He was too determined to attack the article’s author. Like some other people I know.

            And the big deal is what?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Do you have an alternate meaning for the term “front and center?” Is my paraphrase “above all else” acceptable?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, if all of the commentary on a particular site is aimed in a particular direction, then challenging the logic of that commentary is going to appear equally biased. It’s inevitable.”

            So I should search your comment stream to see you grilling ACA and “it’s not really amnesty” supporters. Let me see what I can find.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes, of course you do. It’s something of a pattern lately. When you find yourself unable to provide evidence or support an argument that you clearly plainly and sincerely believe in, you start lashing out at the person you are discussing the matter with.”

            I’m calling you on your blatant bias while posing as some neutral observer. Maybe in some sense you are a centrist according to your worldview. I agree. But at the same time you’re a propagandist that won’t even admit when he’s caught spinning. That’s my specific allegation. Clear enough? I mean anyone can be a centrist within some POV (relative) scale.

            So let’s hear your criticism of this president. Is it still your theory that the main controversy is due to some kind of racism, bigotry, class struggle and so forth and nothing to do with his highly controversial performance and policies? You think it’s just “sensible” to shrink American hegemony, and then totally fail to make any adjustments when the strategy goes haywire? I mean you’ll disregard the rational arguments for nonproliferation of nukes just to argue with people here and say “what’s so bad about applying MAD to Iran” or “what’s so bad about a caliphate?” No big deal. Well anyone can say that about literally anything.

            Where’s the balance? It’s not there. You’ve been here long enough for any observer that’s paying attention to reasonably conclude that you have a “hidden” (so you hope) agenda to unwind nationalism or something like that in your mind. It’s still an agenda that you try to hide. Why would anyone trust your intellectual integrity on these partisan issues? You’re a partisan even if you’re not specifically loyal to the DP. You’re just against “nationalists” and “nationalism” which you think is “rational” therefore your spin is all justified.

            Nonetheless, you’re not that open about it. And ultimately it’s perfectly reasonable for me to characterize that as mendacity regardless of your intentions.

            I’m open about my “biases” and will defend them. That’s not the same as pretending I haven’t made up my mind on, say, the value of Marxism. I’m “biased” in that I have drawn conclusions on controversial topics but I explain my conclusions as long as anyone is interested in hearing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You seem to assume that if someone takes issue with you over something you’ve said, that person is embracing your ‘enemies.’ That’s paranoid thinking, and if your commitment to ‘rational discussions’ is real, you should probably step back and ask yourself why you find yourself focusing so frequently and inappropriately on the people you are talking to instead of attending to the logic of the topic at hand.”

            Don’t be ridiculous. The paramount issue is that in effect you cover for the administration and the DP even if personally you hate them. I don’t care. What I care about is that you try to shape the debate in a biased manner because of some biases that you have. If you want to examine those biases honestly that’s up to you. You’ve hinted at them in the past and unfortunately for me I remember things that I often don’t even care about. But right now it is what it is. If you don’t care that people don’t trust you here, then you don’t care.

            Take it for what it’s worth to you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, wait – after years of trying to place Benghazi front and center, you object to it being placed front and center, when the conclusions don’t support the narrative you’d hoped it would?”

            You’re full of crap. There is no way you can claim you were not referring to me personally.

            Keep digging. Put all your chips on the green 0. Spin the wheel again.

          • hiernonymous

            “Keep digging. Put all your chips on the green 0. Spin the wheel again.”

            Umm – you’re the one repeating yourself. Were you hoping for a different answer this time?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Actually the root point (WRT the Benghazi discussion) is that I DID NOT have any money down on this report.

            Get it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “It’s not an obscure term.”

          True, but it can be useful to investigate conspiracy theories. What do you call it when you agree with the skeptics? Is there some other approved term that is not used as a pejorative? Or do you think all conspiracy theories are moot or even destructive to dicsuss until all of the evidence is in?

          That’s not very pro-active. People need to manage risks even with incomplete or inconclusive evidence.

          • hiernonymous

            “… it can be useful to investigate conspiracy theories.”

            Sure. But conspiracy theorists aren’t the ones to do it. You seem to have missed the point about imbalanced credulity and skepticism. That makes for poor investigation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But conspiracy theorists aren’t the ones to do it. You seem to have missed the point about imbalanced credulity and skepticism. ”

            I didn’t miss the point at all. I asked if there was a separate term for those who are not imbalanced in their approach.