Jim in Anchorage Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 My company employs IT Nazis to restrict my computer fun. No Solitaire, no Minesweeper, no streaming video. Hell, I can't even get IMDB. It's a wonder they haven't figured a way to block this site yet. That's cause only 5 people outside Erie county know the Bills exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 That's cause only 5 people outside Erie county know the Bills exist And me, you, and Rob are 3 of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 And me, you, and Rob are 3 of them Unfortunately RW is not one of the other two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 That's cause only 5 people outside Erie county know the Bills exist Is it know or care they exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Sunday talk shows downplay...................................MSM: not derelict, but complicit.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 As a proud member of the IT Nazis, I'd just like to say Sig Heil B*tch And my comrades could block TSW anytime they please I don't suppose you know any tricks for bypassing your tyrannical comrades so I can stream Sunday Ticket and save my data plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Sunday talk shows downplay...................................MSM: not derelict, but complicit.............. We are all victims of this media conspiracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) “one of the problems we’re having here is, that it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News and a couple others, to do all the heavy lifting on this story.” A “couple of others” may be generous. CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson is about the only other major news outlet journalist showing any interest. “The mainstream organs of the media that would be after this like a pack of hounds, if this were a Republican President,” Hume observed, “have been remarkably reticent.” - Bret Hume http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2AdF5QNbn The Panetta Doctrine The Secretary of Defense in his best grown-up voice says:“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.” It seems obvious that Panetta is trying protect Obama from responsibility for the Administration’s Benghazi response. I don’t think that works. The decision to outsource the call is still a presidential decision. But there are two problems bigger problems with the Panetta doctrine. First, Panetta says they didn’t have real-time information. Uh, if having a live video feed and real-time reports from assets on the ground for hours doesn’t count as real time information, what does? And, if as rumors suggest, the drones monitoring the situation were armed, the idea that the administration was trying to avoid some kind of “black hawk down” situation seems incomprehensible. Which brings us to the second, I think bigger, problem with the Panetta doctrine. If the circumstances in Libya didn’t meet the “enough information” threshold for a rescue attempt or some other form of intervention, then what does? And, note, Panetta & Co. make it sound like the decision to let the Americans on the scene twist in the wind was sort of a no-brainer, not a difficult decision. So what happened in Libya didn’t even come close to the threshold for intervention. What does that mean? Well, it seems to me that any embassy or consulate subjected to a surprise attack will likely catch the administration off guard. That’s why they call them “surprise attacks,” after all. According to the Panetta doctrine, the very essence of what makes a surprise attack a surprise attack likely precludes any commitment of U.S. forces to repel it . The message to our diplomats and troops: You’re on your own. The message to terrorists: As long as you keep your attacks minimally confusing, you win. That’s outrageous. Edited October 28, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 If this happened along with all the coverup and bold faced lies and violating 1st amendment rights and then apologizing to terrorists wtf....obama needs to be impeached if we are dumb enough to re elect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Seriously. Nixon had to resign in disgrace and his name has become a hiss and byword, and all he did was to go along with a coverup of a third rate burglary of his opponent's DC headquarters. Here we've got the jug-eared stuttering doofus running around campaigning 24/7/365 for six years, and skipping town while the Mid East burns and his Ambassador is brutally murdered along with three other Americans - because he is an incompetent narcissistic buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) First of all: I have largely kept my mouth shut about the attack itself, because I know how fast things can turn into ClusterFart. The fog of war is real. But, this is limited to the events in Libya during the attack. Also: 7 hours or real time intel...stretches the definition of "fog of war". There is no excuse for what happened after, and no excuse for not increasing security after the prior attacks. However, if Obama, Panetta, and Patreus were serving officers in the Army? There would be an inquiry, at least. More than likely courts martial would be convened. "Misbehavior in the face of enemy" is not a good thing: http://usmilitary.ab...fo/mcm/bl99.htm Punitive Articles of the UCMJ Article 99—Misbehavior before the enemy Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy— (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.” (9) Failing to afford relief and assistance. (a) That certain troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or an ally of the United States were engaged in battle and required relief and assistance; Yep (b) That the accused was in a position and able to render relief and assistance to these troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft, without jeopardy to the accused’s mission; Yep WTF other mission was there? Oh I forgot: "normalizing relations" © That the accused failed to afford all practicable relief and assistance; and Yep We had plenty of assets (d) That, at the time, the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy. Unknown. Is watching a drone cam being "in the presence" of the enemy? This may be how they get off. (9) Failing to afford relief and assistance. (a) All practicable relief and assistance. “All practicable relief and assistance” means all relief and assistance which should be afforded within the limitations imposed upon a person by reason of that person’s own specific tasks or mission. (b) Nature of offense. This offense is limited to a failure to afford relief and assistance to forces “engaged in battle.” I honestly don't know if the UCMJ applies to civilians in the chain of command. But, it seems like it should. Otherwise, where is their justification for being in that chain, and where do they derive the power to hold those below them to the UCMJ? Duck is on ignore. How anyone can defend this piece of **** of a president now is beyond me. But really? He's not defending him at all. He's merely trying to distract. We are all victims of this media conspiracy! No. The truth, and objectivity is the victim. And, since the MSM has done this too many times, things like FOX News appears, and beats them all in the ratings, even the big 3(check the debate ratings). Now the MSM is a victim, of itself. The NYT is rapidly on its way to losing it "paper of record" status. Libya may just be what finally breaks them. Edited October 29, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/28/judge-jeanine-rips-bho-over-benghazi-and-there-is-a-larger-problem/#disqus_thread http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/27/did-obama-refuse-to-aid-our-men-in-benghazi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 http://theothermccain.com/2012/10/28/judge-jeanine-rips-bho-over-benghazi-and-there-is-a-larger-problem/#disqus_thread http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/27/did-obama-refuse-to-aid-our-men-in-benghazi/ I'm literally sick to my stomach and disgusted over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm literally sick to my stomach and disgusted over this. Romney's wife has a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No big fan of Gingrich, but his point is well taken: a hurricane comes and Obama cancels trips to sit on office and monitor storm. But he watches in real time as our consulate is attacked, support denied and four Americans murdered by terrorists and it's Viva Las Vegas, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Benhoozi? by Mark Steyn Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don’t think it’s worth talking about. In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They’re still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 No big fan of Gingrich, but his point is well taken: a hurricane comes and Obama cancels trips to sit on office and monitor storm. But he watches in real time as our consulate is attacked, support denied and four Americans murdered by terrorists and it's Viva Las Vegas, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 This keeps getting worse by the day. What's next; that they were selling arms to al Qaeda so they could track them? Well, actually that's what Glenn Beck and others have been alleging for the past week. The more pieces to this puzzle that are coming out, the more I'm buying that story. Clearly, there was something going on that the administration is trying to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts