What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dems want to pack the USSC

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").


... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
12,865
Reaction score
7,261
Points
930
Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)


Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
12,865
Reaction score
7,261
Points
930

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?

The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)


Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”
So yes, Italy. They could have flown over.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").



... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").



... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

face-palm-gif.278959


Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").



... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

face-palm-gif.278959


Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.
I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.
No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.
No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.
Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").



... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

face-palm-gif.278959


Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.
I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.
Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
83,928
Reaction score
19,121
Points
2,210
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.
No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.
Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.
LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Never said report. I said they agreed the security was deficient. OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

Once again, you prove even you don't know what you're talking about.

ShortBus, you said...

The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya: Clinton and the administration should have realized and addressed risks. (The Democrats' version of the report acknowledges "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate").



... g''head, tell me again how you never said "report."


face-palm-gif.278959
So that is not their version? It was just verbal not in the report? OCD Ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

You're cracking me up, ShortBus.

You posted a misquote from Wikipedia from that report. YOU posted it came from a report.

Then in response to me pointing you're lying, that 'point one in the Democrats' report was there was inadequate security due to decisions by officials in the DS, not Hillary,' you idiotically deny saying anything about a report.

face-palm-gif.278959


Like I said, time and time again, you prove me right for calling you "ShortBus." You're a fucking retard.
I posted the same from WAPO, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. The initial discussion was what benefit came from the investigations. My point was to have better security going forward in our embassy as the bi-partisan report showed that security was deficient. That was all and you jumped all over it like a fucking OCD ridden loser. Stop stalking me, it is getting weird.
Fucking moron, the Washington Post article you eventually quoted after getting caught posting from Wikipedia included the part where they blamed the DS, not Hillary. Something you didn't do earlier because the Wikipedia article you copied & pasted from left that part out.
Idiot that has nothing to do what FFI and I were discussing, you OCD ridden fat fuck.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
12,865
Reaction score
7,261
Points
930
The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)

Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”

So yes, Italy. They could have flown over.
They would have to have launched with no guarantee they could make it back. They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
You left out democrats also called the republican cuts to state department embassy security funding (25%) made funding security woefully inadequate.
So the 25% is what led to him only having 2 security personnel?

The cuts prevented them from increasing security in Benghazi, and why they had to use contracted security around the exterior.
So private security made up for it. Why didn't they deploy the fighter jets, that were readily available?
The report addresses that. You should read it if you really want to know the reason.
Enlighten me, OCD ridden fat fuck faun.
LOLOL

I just did, ShortBus. I told you where you can find the answer to your question.
No, I mean your opinion on it, OCD ridden fat fuck faun. Do you believe Benghazi was handled well. You cut and paste shit but rarely if ever opine. I get that you're a simpleton but this is an opinion board.
No, I think Republicans fucked it up by politicizing it. Case in point, some 60 people were killed in a dozen embassy and consulate attacks while Bush was president. Zero attacks on Bush over them. Zero attacks on his Secretary of State over them. Zero investigations over them. Zero tax dollars wasted.
Bush was the worst president of all time. My point was what happened in Benghazi should not happen again and both the Republicans and Democrats agreed that security was deficient. The initial debate was whether or not an investigation was warranted and I say yes to attain better best practices as both parties agreed that security was deficient. That was all. Now STFU and stop stalking me, you deranged OCD ridden fat fuck.
LOLOL

By "stalking," you mean destroying your bullshit. No worries, ShortBus, keep crying like a 4 year old girl who had her Barbie doll taken away.

:abgg2q.jpg:
No, by stalking I mean stalking you OCD ridden fat fuck. You jumped into a conversation at its end point and missed the meaning of the conversation. Go stalk elsewhere. You are such a pathetic loser.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
45,985
Reaction score
17,334
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
The final argument, made by a whistleblower at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing, is that the military could have ordered a “flyover” of F-16 fighter jets to “scatter” the militants in Benghazi.

The nearest of these planes was in Aviano, Italy, which is almost exactly the maximum distance that the jets can fly without refueling (provided they aren’t carrying any weapons whatsoever.)

Flying refuelers like the Stratotanker could refuel the jets mid-flight though, right? Not so fast.

As Joe Pappalardo of Popular Mechanics points out, the tempo of operations in Afghanistan and other areas dictates the usage of refuelers, “so getting a Stratotanker over the Adriatic to refuel an F-16 on short notice is pretty hard.”

So yes, Italy. They could have flown over.
They would have to have launched with no guarantee they could make it back. They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.
So they fly, destroy the terrorists. Land, refuel and fly back? OK....my thoughts. Terrorists would scatter with F-16s bombing the fuck out of them.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
1,746
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Prefer a more balanced court, believe that would serve us best. Some people like winning for their team more than what's best for all of us.
Courts aren't supposed to be "balanced" courts are supposed to rule on cases based solely on the law and Constitution.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
12,865
Reaction score
7,261
Points
930
They had enough fuel for a flyover (no loitering) and would have to then either emergency land in Libya, or splash in the Adriatic.

Think of the Doolittle raid, but without bombs.
So they fly, destroy the terrorists. Land, refuel and fly back? OK....my thoughts. Terrorists would scatter with F-16s bombing the fuck out of them.
Are you intentionally playing stupid. The article clearly says that the range of the F-16 with arms aboard, wasn't enough to reach Benghazi.
They could either fly over Benghazi unarmed, or run out of fuel on the way there, carrying weapons.

There was no way they could "attack" Benghazi.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top