Trump's Defense Pick Accused of Delaying Aid to Wounded Soldiers

[JakeStarkey]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

I am not a liberal, you are not an American patriot, but you are saying you support Hillary's actions, so you are saying you support Mattis, who acted like Hillary, to be president. You can't have it both ways.

Who did you vote for Jake?

Who did you vote for RGS. I voted for McMullin. You voted for the clown. you guys can't have it both ways.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This will have no bearing on his confirmation.

The only question that remains is whether or not the Deomcrats will insist that the 7 year rule be applied. If they do, they can block him.

Now...if the Dems were led by McConnell and Ryan, we know what they would do. We saw that with Merrick Garner. They'd do anything to oppose the POTUS. Even buck centuries of tradition and snub their noses at the constitution.

They aren't, thoùgh. And he will be given a waiver. The Dems are interested in making the best of a bad situation.

Now...to the point of the OP. Nobody is perfect and I'm military situations, bad calls are made sometimes. Sometimes lives are given for the greater good.....or what the decision maker believes is the greater good. Unless he acted negligently or some other devastating proof emerges, this event isn't something that would force sane, logical people to oppose the man.

I'm a little more concerned with what he's been doing since he retired from active duty. But that won't prevent his confirmation either.

Let's hope Trump listens to the guy.

No asswipe...the first ones to stop the process due to an election were the democrats....moron....and they also ended the filibuster...another long and honored tradition......the democrats will do anything for power...so sell your crap to democrat borg drones....

Shup, fool. Didn't some brit shoot anyone today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

sw, you say you served your country, but I really did. You support Hillary's action if you support Mattis: same same.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sw, you say you served your country, but I really did. You support Hillary's action if you support Mattis: same same.

Liar but then you have been lying on here since the first day you joined.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sw, you say you served your country, but I really did. You support Hillary's action if you support Mattis: same same.

Liar but then you have been lying on here since the first day you joined.

Telling you the truth about you is never a lie, weak head. I served, and whether you like it means nothing. If you support Mattis, then you support HRC. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Divine Wind]

On December 5, 2001, as the wreckage of the twin towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan, a team of Army Green Berets accompanying Hamid Karzai, the future president of Afghanistan, was hit by a U.S. smart bomb in a case of friendly fire.

Two American soldiers died instantly and a third was badly wounded. He would later die, thought it is unclear whether that soldier would have survived had a rescue team arrived more quickly. Dozens of Afghans also were killed, and the CIA officer who now runs the agency's spying arm protected Karzai with his body.

snip

He was indecisive and betrayed his duty to us, leaving my men to die during the golden hour when he could have reached us," Jason Amerine, who led the Army special forces operation as a captain, said in a Facebook post Friday morning.

"Every element in Afghanistan tried to help us except the closest friendly unit, commanded by Mattis," added Amerine, who retired as a lieutenant colonel and made news in recent years as a prominent critic of the Obama administration's hostage policies.

The 15th anniversary of the Afghanistan friendly fire incident is Monday. Master Sgt. Jefferson Donald Davis, 39; Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Henry Petithory, 32; and Staff Sgt. Brian Cody Prosser, 28, were killed.

Ultimately, an Air Force Special Forces unit based three hours away, in Pakistan, sent older helicopters to rescue Amerine and his men. Three more Afghans and a badly-wounded American, Brian Cody Prosser, died on the way to the hospital, according to the book. It is not known whether any of them could have been saved.

A former Green Beret accuses Trump's Defense pick of delaying help to wounded soldiers

Nice spin. However, consider two important points:

1) From your own link: "witnesses quoted Mattis saying that he didn't want to send a rescue mission into an uncertain situation.

According to witness accounts in the book, Mattis reportedly questioned why a rescue mission was needed and worried about whether the situation on the ground was secure." Going from the frying pan into the fire is a bad move. Mattis obviously didn't want to risk even more lives until information was known.

2) Benghazi, 11SEP12. As the movie "13 Hours" pointed out, while security personnel from the nearby CIA annex wanted to rush over to the Consulate, the CIA chief of the annex told them to wait until further information on the scale of the attack was known. Later, as the movie and history shows, the annex itself came under attack.

Now you can Monday Morning Quarterback all you like, Bones, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim Mattis was wrong to wait for more intel yet praise the CIA chief for waiting for more intel. FWIW, I think both were correct. In the "fog of war", it's good to be cautious. Better to lose a few than a lot.

 

[Divine Wind]

You think the Sec Def is an advisor?

Why so ignorant?

Not just an advisor, but is there any denying that POTUS is responsible for, and therefore can override, his Secretaries? IOW, disregard their "advice"?

 

[Divine Wind]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

 

[2aguy]

This will have no bearing on his confirmation.

The only question that remains is whether or not the Deomcrats will insist that the 7 year rule be applied. If they do, they can block him.

Now...if the Dems were led by McConnell and Ryan, we know what they would do. We saw that with Merrick Garner. They'd do anything to oppose the POTUS. Even buck centuries of tradition and snub their noses at the constitution.

They aren't, thoùgh. And he will be given a waiver. The Dems are interested in making the best of a bad situation.

Now...to the point of the OP. Nobody is perfect and I'm military situations, bad calls are made sometimes. Sometimes lives are given for the greater good.....or what the decision maker believes is the greater good. Unless he acted negligently or some other devastating proof emerges, this event isn't something that would force sane, logical people to oppose the man.

I'm a little more concerned with what he's been doing since he retired from active duty. But that won't prevent his confirmation either.

Let's hope Trump listens to the guy.

Why should he listen to him?

You can't survive without conflict in your day, huh? Must be rough.

He should listen to him because he knows that torture doesn't work and because he's got a clue about how the world works. That's why. Trump is a full time student now....and he likes to ditch class.

Torture does work, but what does that have to do with the U.S.?

 

[LoneLaugher]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

Why, oh why?!!

She accepted responsibility for their safety. If every leader who lost a soldier or an agent was branded for life as a criminal or a
never permitted to serve the public again....our government would be a lonely place.

 

[2aguy]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

Hilary could have told obama to send help......that is what she should have done...she didn't...she let them die because both her and obama didn't want to draw attention to the attack and they thought it would end without any casualties...they were wrong....

 

[LoneLaugher]

This will have no bearing on his confirmation.

The only question that remains is whether or not the Deomcrats will insist that the 7 year rule be applied. If they do, they can block him.

Now...if the Dems were led by McConnell and Ryan, we know what they would do. We saw that with Merrick Garner. They'd do anything to oppose the POTUS. Even buck centuries of tradition and snub their noses at the constitution.

They aren't, thoùgh. And he will be given a waiver. The Dems are interested in making the best of a bad situation.

Now...to the point of the OP. Nobody is perfect and I'm military situations, bad calls are made sometimes. Sometimes lives are given for the greater good.....or what the decision maker believes is the greater good. Unless he acted negligently or some other devastating proof emerges, this event isn't something that would force sane, logical people to oppose the man.

I'm a little more concerned with what he's been doing since he retired from active duty. But that won't prevent his confirmation either.

Let's hope Trump listens to the guy.

Why should he listen to him?

You can't survive without conflict in your day, huh? Must be rough.

He should listen to him because he knows that torture doesn't work and because he's got a clue about how the world works. That's why. Trump is a full time student now....and he likes to ditch class.

Torture does work, but what does that have to do with the U.S.?

Idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

because he insisted on it

 

[Synthaholic]

He's going to have a hard time getting confirmed. For a lot of reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

Hilary could have told obama to send help......that is what she should have done...she didn't...she let them die because both her and obama didn't want to draw attention to the attack and they thought it would end without any casualties...they were wrong....

Which would have made no difference. But she was like Mattis, who left warriors to die on the battlefield in 2001, so she had good role models.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This will have no bearing on his confirmation.

The only question that remains is whether or not the Deomcrats will insist that the 7 year rule be applied. If they do, they can block him.

Now...if the Dems were led by McConnell and Ryan, we know what they would do. We saw that with Merrick Garner. They'd do anything to oppose the POTUS. Even buck centuries of tradition and snub their noses at the constitution.

They aren't, thoùgh. And he will be given a waiver. The Dems are interested in making the best of a bad situation.

Now...to the point of the OP. Nobody is perfect and I'm military situations, bad calls are made sometimes. Sometimes lives are given for the greater good.....or what the decision maker believes is the greater good. Unless he acted negligently or some other devastating proof emerges, this event isn't something that would force sane, logical people to oppose the man.

I'm a little more concerned with what he's been doing since he retired from active duty. But that won't prevent his confirmation either.

Let's hope Trump listens to the guy.

Why should he listen to him?

You can't survive without conflict in your day, huh? Must be rough.

He should listen to him because he knows that torture doesn't work and because he's got a clue about how the world works. That's why. Trump is a full time student now....and he likes to ditch class.

Torture does work, but what does that have to do with the U.S.?

In inflicting pain, sure, but in terms of valid info, there is no definite answer to that one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But if failing to send aid was OK for Hillary and supported by all you libs, why is it a bar to Mattis?

While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn't Hillary's call to send in the military. She didn't run the CIA or the DOD. She was, however, responsible for the actions and security of her Ambassadors. Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place? Why wasn't he at the Embassy in Tripoli instead of a relatively insecure consulate?

Why, oh why?!!

She accepted responsibility for their safety. If every leader who lost a soldier or an agent was branded for life as a criminal or a
never permitted to serve the public again....our government would be a lonely place.

The far right branded her as a criminal, so the far right better be branding Mattis as a criminal.

 

[Divine Wind]

Torture does work, but what does that have to do with the U.S.?

Sorry, dude, but not only isn't it as effective as other methods, it's immoral and unAmerican. Certainly not Christian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Torture does work, but what does that have to do with the U.S.?

Sorry, dude, but not only isn't it as effective as other methods, it's immoral and unAmerican. Certainly not Christian.

But certainly torture is a 2aGuy kind of way to roll.

 

[Divine Wind]

The far right branded her as a criminal, so the far right better be branding Mattis as a criminal.

Agreed the far Right branded her a criminal and now you the far Left is branding Mattis a criminal.