The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[1DOWN4UP]

Freckles look Good on a redhead!

 

[Brad69]

Yeah that patch of hair on the left bottom needs touched up.
I have a feeling she is out of a trailer park in Florida.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah that patch of hair on the left bottom needs touched up.
I have a feeling she is out of a trailer park in Florida.

Damn, you were REALLY in there weren't ya?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

DURING BUSH ADMINISTRATION13 Embassy attacks
66 deaths
3 American diplomats killed
22 Embassy employees killed
Number of investigations 0


DURING REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
10 Embassy attacks
318 deaths
1 US ambassador killed
18 CiA officers
254 Marines
Number of investigations 1


DURING OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
2 Embassy attacks
4 American deaths
Number of Investigations 13

Snopes thoroughly debunks the major contention of this leftist troll email fodder.

https://www.snopes.com/u-s-embassy-attacks-compared/

It's interesting to note that when Politifact judges the "raw numbers" as "mostly true" for Bush, it includes many of the attacks like the 2008 Turkey consulate attack. In fact, it's the "headline" picture in their article.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

Three armed gunmen attacked and were killed by the host country security (which is a requirement, btw, of Vienna conventions for the host to provide security). Three Turkish police were killed in the firefight. Had the attackers been able to overcome the Turkish security, they would have faced a Marine contingent... who would have mowed them down while DoS security secured the Ambassador and civilian staff.

Three rings of security... host nation, Marines, State Department security detail.

In Libya, both Stevens as well as the previous ambassador stated multiple times that Libya did not have a functioning government and could not provide the required host nation security. Still, Clinton's State Department refused the DoD security detail, sent them home about a month before the fatal attack (as opposed to the previous, failed attacks), and determined that FIVE security operatives was the correct level of security in that environment... and then only provided THREE of the FIVE.

INCOMPETENT MORONS!

ETA: Yes, US Ambassadors have been killed while serving... but it's pretty rare. Even with all of the hostility towards the US since the late 70's, the last one was in 1988... and it wasn't for lack of trying to kill ambassadors, it was a long dry spell because we protected our diplomats. Until we didn't.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

... dup

 

[Birds Away]

What the hell is up with the chicks elbows ?

A little rug burn on the elbows is a good thing.

 

[Alpo]

... dup

So, when is Snopes allowed to be used? According to 99% of the responders on this site, they are leftist pinko gender bending liars, frauds and cheats. (See any Jamil response).

Stevens had the right to not go. This wasn't a Seal team mission. He could have told anyone up to, and including the president, to stuff it. Unfortunately his enthusiasm overrode his common sense.

 

[printcraft]

So, when is Snopes allowed to be used? According to 99% of the responders on this site, they are leftist pinko gender bending liars, frauds and cheats. (See any Jamil response).

Stevens had the right to not go. This wasn't a Seal team mission. He could have told anyone up to, and including the president, to stuff it. Unfortunately his enthusiasm overrode his common sense.

 

[femurphy77]

What the hell is up with the chicks elbows ?

Elbows??

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, when is Snopes allowed to be used? According to 99% of the responders on this site, they are leftist pinko gender bending liars, frauds and cheats. (See any Jamil response).

Not even Snopes would endorse the "stats" you presented. So I'll take your deflection and mis-direction, instead of putting forth facts, as acknowledgement that those stats are left-wing troll bait that should not be taken at face value.

Stevens had the right to not go.

"Right"? I don't know how that applies, but sure he could have refused to do his job and left Libya. The Marines in Beirut could have refused to go there. Both would have had repercussions. Those up the chain who sent each there had an obligation to think it through, establish security, setup a perimeter, etc.

This wasn't a Seal team mission. He could have told anyone up to, and including the president, to stuff it. Unfortunately his enthusiasm overrode his common sense.

Ummm, after the DoD security team of 12-16 was ordered to leave by the State morons back in DC, Steven's trip to Benghazi was to combine and co-locate the diplomatic consulate there with the CIA mission IN ORDER TO ENHANCE SECURITY FOR BOTH. Or, he could have sat in Tripoli and left his people flapping in the breeze... just like Hillary did.

You couldn't seriously say that Hillary, when SoS, would have visited Libya with a security contingent of 3, would you?

REPEAT ETA: Yes, US Ambassadors have been killed while serving... but it's pretty rare. Even with all of the hostility towards the US since the late 70's, the last one was in 1988 (though the likely target was the Pakistani President on the same plane)... and it wasn't for lack of trying to kill ambassadors, it was a long dry spell because we protected our diplomats. Until we didn't.

 

[Alpo]

Not even Snopes would endorse the "stats" you presented. So I'll take your deflection and mis-direction, instead of putting forth facts, as acknowledgement that those stats are left-wing troll bait that should not be taken at face value.

If you have better facts, show them. I don't want to read long articles on the subject. Show me a nice little tabulation.

Politifact agreed that the information on Bush was "mostly true" because Garamendi UNDERSTATED the info. WTF?

"Right"? I don't know how that applies, but sure he could have refused to do his job and left Libya. The Marines in Beirut could have refused to go there. Both would have had repercussions. Those up the chain who sent each there had an obligation to think it through, establish security, setup a perimeter, etc.

Please....Beirut and Benghazi were different animals at different times. No one was in Benghazi for the State Dept. Stevens didn't need to be there. In his zeal, he decided to go at that time, on that date, with that level of security. He could just have easily not gone and stayed in Tripoli, which wasn't safe, by any means, but it had some semblance of military order and chain of command.

Ummm, after the DoD security team of 12-16 was ordered to leave by the State morons back in DC, Steven's trip to Benghazi was to combine and co-locate the diplomatic consulate there with the CIA mission IN ORDER TO ENHANCE SECURITY FOR BOTH. Or, he could have sat in Tripoli and left his people flapping in the breeze... just like Hillary did.

You know this...how? There was no need to be in Benghazi at that time. Period.

You couldn't seriously say that Hillary, when SoS, would have visited Libya with a security contingent of 3, would you?

Irrelevant.

REPEAT ETA: Yes, US Ambassadors have been killed while serving... but it's pretty rare. Even with all of the hostility towards the US since the late 70's, the last one was in 1988 (though the likely target was the Pakistani President on the same plane)... and it wasn't for lack of trying to kill ambassadors, it was a long dry spell because we protected our diplomats. Until we didn't.[/QUOTE]

 

[BugI02]

So, when is Snopes allowed to be used? According to 99% of the responders on this site, they are leftist pinko gender bending liars, frauds and cheats. (See any Jamil response).

Stevens had the right to not go. This wasn't a Seal team mission. He could have told anyone up to, and including the president, to stuff it. Unfortunately his enthusiasm overrode his common sense.

View attachment 60853

 

[SheepDog4Life]

If you have better facts, show them. I don't want to read long articles on the subject. Show me a nice little tabulation.

Politifact agreed that the information on Bush was "mostly true" because Garamendi UNDERSTATED the info. WTF?

The issue isn't how many times militants attempted to kill US diplomats, no President can "prevent" attacks, but how well protected our people are. As Snopes indicated (btw, a shorter article than the Politifact one), if the metric is attacks on US Diplomatic facilities where the militants were successful in killing Americans, then under Bush, it would be 3 attacks that killed 4 Americans. Apples to apples.

BTW, if you use the more expansive version of "attacks" that Politico "verifies", then there were 9, not 2, during Obama's tenure. Oranges to oranges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

Please....Beirut and Benghazi were different animals at different times. No one was in Benghazi for the State Dept. Stevens didn't need to be there. In his zeal, he decided to go at that time, on that date, with that level of security. He could just have easily not gone and stayed in Tripoli, which wasn't safe, by any means, but it had some semblance of military order and chain of command.




You know this...how? There was no need to be in Benghazi at that time. Period.

From WaPo:

Stevens’ deputy chief of mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 8, 2013, that “at least one of the reasons he was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s [Clinton’s] wish that that post become a permanent constituent post.”

and

Hicks indicated to the House committee that Stevens originally planned to go to Benghazi in October, but by going in September he might get fiscal 2012 funds to upgrade the Benghazi compound.

And, interestingly, this quote from Clinton:

In her 2013 House testimony, Clinton said, “Nobody knew the dangers or the opportunities better than Chris, first during the revolution, then during the transition.”

And yet, his requests NOT to reduce and instead to INCREASE security were ignored and over-ruled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...03c48c96ac2_story.html?utm_term=.3906eb8a6f48

Irrelevant.

"Leaders" who cover their own backside better than they would their people's safety is completely relevant... and exactly the point.

 

[jamil]

The issue isn't how many times militants attempted to kill US diplomats, no President can "prevent" attacks, but how well protected our people are. As Snopes indicated (btw, a shorter article than the Politifact one), if the metric is attacks on US Diplomatic facilities where the militants were successful in killing Americans, then under Bush, it would be 3 attacks that killed 4 Americans. Apples to apples.

BTW, if you use the more expansive version of "attacks" that Politico "verifies", then there were 9, not 2, during Obama's tenure. Oranges to oranges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities



From WaPo:



and



And, interestingly, this quote from Clinton:



And yet, his requests NOT to reduce and instead to INCREASE security were ignored and over-ruled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...03c48c96ac2_story.html?utm_term=.3906eb8a6f48



"Leaders" who cover their own backside better than they would their people's safety is completely relevant... and exactly the point.

I strongly suspect you were given busywork.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Either of the above....OR someone is pretty naive about the workings of the world.

Want to phone a friend?

You are missing the point. The fact that this sh*t happens more frequently than most people realize doesn't change the fact that the responsible parties need a .308 boat tail in one ear and out the other, not having excuses made for their malfeasance because 'everyone' in that type of position does it.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[Gadgetmonster]

Totally one of the best threads yet... such serious dialog. Some deep passionate debate. Well thought out paragraphs full of meaning.
I hate it. Makes me wretch... just like talking heads on TV. But I thumb through every page in hopes of one more picture!
Please keep up the great thought provoking writing but more General Salma Hayek Pleeese!

 

[Alpo]

Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

The facts of what happened and why were clearly established by the Accountability Review Board:

Ambassador Chris Stevens was responsible for the decision to travel to Benghazi. In-country travel is solely at the discretion of the ambassador, and he did not need to seek Department of State approval.
He traveled to Benghazi knowing full well that his physical and personnel security concerns had not been adequately addressed by the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Despite the security concerns, he traveled nonetheless due to personnel rotation in Benghazi and to re-establish contacts in Benghazi.
He left Benghazi on November 17, 2011, and returned as ambassador to Libya on September 10, 2012. In that intervening time, and in the six months prior to September 11, there had been 20 security incidents. Despite a CIA presence in Benghazi, Stevens was unaware of the evolution of the militias that subsequently killed him and his colleagues.
We have served as ambassadors or chargés d’affaires in war zones: in the civil war in El Salvador, in the drug war in Bolivia and both in Bosnia. In-country travel is an issue of risk management versus strategic purpose. The regional security officer, the CIA station chief, the defense attaché and other embassy staff all have input and make recommendations.

In the end, it is the ambassador or chargé’s judgment and call. As the Accountability Review Board documented, Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel.

 

[BugI02]

Not sure how Steven's ostensibly free choice (I'm guessing much like us, defying his boss would not be without consequences) to travel to Benghazi, despite his having found the level of in-country security to be inadequate, somehow excuses the SoS's decision to leave them to die

Do go on

 

[jamil]

Knowing Its Dangers, Chris Stevens Still Chose to Travel to Benghazi

It may have been a Hobson's choice. Why would a person take such risks? What's the payoff? What pressure was he under behind the scenes?

And regardless, how does that absolve the policy blunders by Clinton and Obama, that 1) made that choice necessary, and 2) enabled the dangerous situation?


Oh. And Newsweek? Isn't that a tabloid?