Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can't install OSX Mavericks

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a year ago

User Journal 30

I've only got 40GB or so of disk space, and that's apparently insufficient.
Most of the time, Apple's "Trust us, we're like the government, only different" approach is OK, but now and then the total lack of (a) feedback or (b) breadcrumbs leaves one felling caught in a Benghazi firefight, screaming for help.I've only got 40GB or so of disk space, and that's apparently insufficient.
Most of the time, Apple's "Trust us, we're like the government, only different" approach is OK, but now and then the total lack of (a) feedback or (b) breadcrumbs leaves one felling caught in a Benghazi firefight, screaming for help.

(Gratuitous political ref for damn_registrars, of course, who will be as unable to see the affection implied as Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods were unable to get anything useful from OccupyResoluteDesk.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45307813)

You stated

as Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods were unable to get anything useful

The shortest distance between DC and Benghazi is over 5,000 miles. A US Air Force C130 at maximum speed [wikipedia.org] would take over 15 hours to get there - ignoring the fact that 5000 miles is well beyond its range. Even if we departed from a base near Rome, Italy it would be more than 2 hours by air, that is is ignoring the amount of time to load the plane with the relevant materials for the fight. Furthermore if you want President Lawnchair to personally authorize action against it, that means that a phone call has to go to him, he has to respond, and subsequently make a phone call to someone who can take action.

Quite simply, the window of time for the attack was too short for President Lawnchair to have been able to authorize counter action and have it effectively change the outcome.

But of course that isn't what you want him evicted and executed for. You don't care about physical reality or any other such bullshit. You just want him gone because of that pesky consonant after his name; if it was from later in the alphabet you would be telling us to leave him alone and that he had done all he could do.

What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45309629)

What could have been done?

Could've told the truth about what went on; could still permit the exposure of truth via a special prosecutor (HR36). Why do you H8 truth?

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45310607)

What could have been done?

Could've told the truth about what went on;

Can you stick to just one narrative? You stated in this JE that they didn't get useful help (even though Washington would have been unlikely to provide any in time). Now you're back to your old fact-free narrative. Which one do you want to hang President Lawnchair over?

That said, do you have reason to believe that the current narrative is not factual? Can you show a reason to believe that they knew the original narrative to be false when they told it? I showed you the actual timeline before; they only went for the "video" narrative for about two weeks and then promptly changed over. Are you trying to claim that they had something to gain by doing this? After all, this administration profits rather tidily from the "global war on terror" as well; calling it a terrorist act from the beginning would have quite likely benefited them.

could still permit the exposure of truth via a special prosecutor (HR36).

HR-36 is still in the house [congress.gov] . It hasn't received a vote yet in the conservative-dominated chamber. President Lawnchair has not had an opportunity to do anything with it as a bill so far. Blaming this on him is like blaming him for gravity when a hammer falls on your toe.

Why do you H8 truth?

Why do you love to bring up Benghazi but hate to actually discuss it in a factual manner?

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45311365)

It hasn't received a vote yet in the conservative-dominated chamber.

Which, itself, points to the greater problem. A proper investigation is going to reveal much, and could purge much evil from our government. Are you prepared to make them stand and deliver, irrespective of which end of the Progressive Party they are connected to, or will you just keep running interference?

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45312771)

It hasn't received a vote yet in the conservative-dominated chamber.

Which, itself, points to the greater problem.

In what way? Are you suggesting that someone in the house is covering their own hindquarters over this?

A proper investigation is going to reveal much

You are very certain of that, yet you have given no reason to support your belief. Does that mean you would discard as "improper" any investigation that does not lead to throwing out the president and everyone else with a (D) after their names?

and could purge much evil from our government

Yeah, we know you believe President Lawnchair is evil. We get that, loud and clear. You can't stand the idea of someone with a (D) in the whitehouse, even if they are more conservative in action than any man who has ever lived in 1600 Pennsylvania.

Are you prepared to make them stand and deliver

If there was even the slightest shred of evidence to support your allegation of the Lawnchair Administration intentionally lying about Benghazi, I would whole-heartedly support your call for an investigation. However I have yet to see any such evidence, and if you know of any you have refused to share it in spite of my repeated request.

or will you just keep running interference?

I am not running interference. You only make that claim because of your hyperpartisan belief system that tells you everyone with a (D) is evil. Hell I am likely less pleased with Obama's performance as POTUS than you are. However I will not support impeachment for reasons of "because 5,000 tea partiers say he's the devil". If you want an investigation, give a reason for it. If the democrats had the spine (best joke of the week) to have launched an investigation into the previous POTUS during his administration you would have asked for the same.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45312927)

I have shared my views plainly, repeated, and succinctly. You refuse to take them at face value.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45313081)

I have shared my views plainly, repeated, and succinctly

Sharing your views is one thing. You have done that, indeed. What you have repeatedly failed to share is why you hold those beliefs. You believe that the Lawnchair administration is lying about Benghazi but you refuse to state why. That is like saying that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster because you like marinara.

You refuse to take them at face value.

No, I do take your beliefs at face value. I accept that you hate the president and every politician with a (D) after their name. I accept that you want President Lawnchair thrown out of office at any cost. I accept that you see the country as spiraling towards a totalitarian socialist nightmare.

You are entitled to have whatever beliefs you want. Just because I don't share the same beliefs does not mean I do not accept them as being yours. I have been for some time now seeking to understand WHY you hold those beliefs. You used to be willing to share occasional bits of insight into that, before you became radicalized. Now you seem to have a mission to destroy the democratic party at all costs, constitutionality be damned.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45314259)

You believe that the Lawnchair administration is lying about Benghazi but you refuse to state why. That is like saying that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster because you like marinara.

Based upon the system, diabolical malfeasance of the Affordable Care Act, coupled with the known, public lying concerning Benghazi, your commitment to giving the Benghazi the Full Alfred E. Neuman makes as much sense as being a flat-Earther. But please: stay beautiful.

Now you seem to have a mission to destroy the democratic party at all costs, constitutionality be damned.

I am on a mission to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Political parties, themselves, are part of the problem, to the extent you can slide a piece of paper between the Progressive flavors of statism.
And that's how I think/feel. You can go right on ahead and keep insulting me by
(a) implying some prevarication, as though I conceal different motives, or
(b) some postmodern mental gymnastics, whereby I'm too stupid to recognize an alleged inner racist.
I can offer you forgiveness and a chuckle.

I'll even allow that, before the '08 election, I harbored vaguely Republican sentiments, did maintain a tendency to discount the malfeasance and failings of the Bush Administration. Social media and the napalm shower afforded Bush by the Left did two things:
(a) burn away the veneer of Constitutional posturing that the Republicans had been using, and
(b) underscore the need to de-fang DC.
So, thanks. I guess.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45315591)

diabolical malfeasance of the Affordable Care Act

Don't try to pretend that you're the only one who doesn't like the health care bailout act of 2010. Don't pretend that it has anything to do with Benghazi, either.

coupled with the known, public lying concerning Benghazi

I have asked you many, many, many, many, many times to show this "known, public lying". Not once have you even attempted an answer to the request. Not. One. Single. Time. This does not do anything to lend credibility to your claim.

your commitment to giving the Benghazi the Full Alfred E. Neuman

Why are you accusing me of this? Have you actually read what I have written? I would have to conclude the answer to that to be no since my responses counter the allegations you just leveled against m with that statement.

implying some prevarication, as though I conceal different motives, or

You don't conceal anything; if you think you do then you are only kidding yourself. You don't have an actual policy argument against President Lawnchair; you hate him for being from a party other than your own. You have demonstrated that many, many, many times over.

whereby I'm too stupid to recognize an alleged inner racist.

You try to play this card about once a week even though it has no bearing on reality whatsoever. I have never called you a racist. Not. One. Single. Time. You know that. Why do you keep playing this strange card?

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45315785)

Don't pretend that it has anything to do with Benghazi, either.

I'm saying the dishonesty in both cases forms an overlap.

Not once have you even attempted an answer to the request. Not. One. Single. Time. This does not do anything to lend credibility to your claim.

For roughly the bazillionth time, Ambassador Rice was sent to lie to the American people. Furthermore, the dishonestly cannot be said to have been without effect upon the election itself. Need to hook a turbine to your spinning anatomy and generate some A/C here.

Why are you accusing me of this? Have you actually read what I have written?

You've got enough smoke screen going on for a three-state wildfire, boss.

You don't have an actual policy argument against President Lawnchair; you hate him for being from a party other than your own. You have demonstrated that many, many, many times over.

You completely mischaracterize me. I H8 the ale vat that allows only the yeastiest yeast rise to the top. I realize your world-view relies upon falsely painting me as a partisan hack. Fret not; I don't expect good-faith argumentation from you.

Why do you keep playing this strange card?

It's as equally surreal as any of the rest of your mis-characterizations. I am as much a racist as a hyper-partisan hack as a female Nigerian botanist with twin sons.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45317325)

For roughly the bazillionth time, Ambassador Rice was sent to lie to the American people.

First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

However that isn't your biggest problem here by a long shot. As I have stated before, in order for you to demonstrate that they lied you need to provide credible evidence that they knew what they were saying to be untrue. I have asked you many times for that evidence and not once have you provided any.

Furthermore, the dishonestly cannot be said to have been without effect upon the election itself.

As I pointed out earlier, the administration officially corrected the statement more than a month before the 2012 election. More time elapsed between the correction and the election than between the event and the correction.

I realize your world-view relies upon falsely painting me as a partisan hack.

Well, you haven't made a legitimate policy claim against the president so far that is in any way different from a policy perspective than what any republican president has ever done. This is not about my worldview, this is about the driving motivation behind your aims. You have given plenty of reason to see your aims as the removal of all things (D), without regard for whether or not they actually differ from standard policies from (R).

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45318995)

First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

Can you expound upon your theory of lying? You seem to imply that #OccupyResoluteDesk is firewalled by sending a flunky out to spew the talking points.

Well, you haven't made a legitimate policy claim against the president so far that is in any way different from a policy perspective than what any republican president has ever done.

So you're saying that because child abuse has plenty of historical instances, someone like a Jerry Sandusky should be acquitted?
If principles matter, they should be applied evenly. I'd rather political careers be snuffed than Ambassadors.
Now, I have to take the mockery for being insufficiently critical of Bush and the GOP. That's fair. But the utter bogosity of your unwillingness to admit that BHO is a mediocre placeholder of a chap with a head full of wretched ideas, absolutely no principles save raw power, and the largest economic crater in human history (sort of an inverse pyramid, if you will) is just completely laughable to me. I mean, your defenses of Obama couldn't be more ludicrous if you were defending Ferdinand Marcos [wikipedia.org] , for crying out loud.
Some ground can be given to BHO that, hey, he's just the fruit of Progress. And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown as #OccupyResoluteDesk--he's just a placeholder marking time until we've gotten far enough past our cultural nadir. You know you're washed up when even Jimmy Carter [ijreview.com] is lobbing spitballs at you.
But keep on defending the indefensible, by all means.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45322055)

First of all, you have on previous occasions claimed that the lie came from President Lawnchair himself, now you are pinning it on someone else.

Can you expound upon your theory of lying? You seem to imply that #OccupyResoluteDesk is firewalled by sending a flunky out to spew the talking points.

When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that they specifically said something they knew to not be true. It's no more complicated than that. In order to prove that someone was lying you need to show that they knew that thing to not be true.

If you say that person B is a mouthpiece for person A, and A sent out B to say something untrue knowing it to be untrue, you still need to show that A knew the statement to be untrue if you are aiming to show that A was lying by proxy through B. I was simply checking to see if you were trying to change your statement from your earlier allegation of President Lawnchair himself lying (which was your accusation many time in the past) to someone else lying on his behalf (which I had not seen you say this way before).

Well, you haven't made a legitimate policy claim against the president so far that is in any way different from a policy perspective than what any republican president has ever done.

So you're saying that because child abuse has plenty of historical instances, someone like a Jerry Sandusky should be acquitted?

Even as far off the deep end as you have been willingly diving that is a strange jump for you. If I may clarify I was specifically mentioning domestic policies of the federal government under the duration of the term of President Lawnchair; I stand by my earlier statement that in that lens there is not a single thing he has done that would have not been done by a republican president before him. We could go further from there to also state that he hasn't done anything novel in foreign policy either; his foreign policy being so uninspired that no republican would have wavered from it, either.

If principles matter, they should be applied evenly. I'd rather political careers be snuffed than Ambassadors.

If you believe that President Lawnchair could have somehow prevented those four deaths on Sept 11 of last year, please explain how. I have been asking you to describe that for ... this entire thread.

Now, I have to take the mockery for being insufficiently critical of Bush and the GOP. That's fair

That barely even scratches the surface. You are treating President Lawnchair as if he is doing something radically different from his conservative predecessors when the opposite is the truth.

But the utter bogosity of your unwillingness to admit that BHO is a mediocre placeholder of a chap

This suggests that indeed you are not reading my posts in their entirety. You should know at least a couple things about me by now:

  • I don't like conservative presidents or conservative politics in this country and see them as sending our country in the wrong direction
  • I have consistently argued that President Lawnchair will have a historical record as the most conservative president we've ever had prior to 2008

Knowing those two things about me, you should not be able to even conclude that I would consider him to be as good as mediocre from a policy standpoint.

with a head full of wretched ideas

If his actions reflect his ideas, then he went into the presidency with a head full of very conservative ideas. I would prefer to think that his actions oppose his ideas and reflect instead his desire to stay in office and not be sent home with a record of having not signed any legislation into law at all.

And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown [...] he's just a placeholder

That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

But keep on defending the indefensible, by all means.

This statement supports my hypothesis that you do not read much of my comments any more. I am not defending anything. I am merely asking how you come up with your allegations. I ask you, and you do not reply. If I said that I felt the Koch Brothers should be drawn and quartered tomorrow at sun-up you would certainly want to know why. If my response was on the order of your response when I ask you for the rationale for your requests for President Lawnchair to be removed from office and executed sans trial you would be similarly dissatisfied.

Re:What could have been done? (2)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45322673)

When you accuse someone of lying, you are saying that they specifically said something they knew to not be true. It's no more complicated than that. In order to prove that someone was lying you need to show that they knew that thing to not be true.

That's simply incorrect. It is not about knowing something to not be true, it is about merely believing it.

If you say that person B is a mouthpiece for person A, and A sent out B to say something untrue knowing it to be untrue, you still need to show that A knew the statement to be untrue if you are aiming to show that A was lying by proxy through B.

Or, that they knew they didn't have sufficient justification to think that the statement was true.

President Lawnchair himself lying

He did. It is beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, when he said on Letterman (two days after Susan Rice lied on five different Sunday shows) that the video was a cause of the attack on Benghazi, that he by that time still was unaware of the vast evidence against the video having anything to do with the attack. He either looked into it, in which case he would have asked for the specific evidence and not been presented with any (since none ever existed), or he did not look into it, which means he didn't want to know and was hoping to have plausible deniability, which is just another form of lying: again, saying something is true when you are fully aware that you don't have sufficient justification to claim it is true is still lying.

If you believe that President Lawnchair could have somehow prevented those four deaths on Sept 11 of last year, please explain how. I have been asking you to describe that for ... this entire thread.

And I gave you, very clearly, evidence that there were many hours in which they could have gotten people to the CIA annex, and plenty of information to lead them there. You lied by responding that I would have opposed Obama doing so, which is not only a lie, but also a textbook example of a form of the red herring fallacy.

And you're lying now by implying you didn't get what you've been asking for.

Because you're a liar.

I don't like conservative presidents or conservative politics in this country and see them as sending our country in the wrong direction

Too bad you can't back it up. Maybe because you do not understand conservatism at all. Case in point:

[Obama] will have a historical record as the most conservative president we've ever had prior to 2008

Simply idiotic. Across nearly every vector -- including civil rights, financial policy, budget policy, size of government -- he is much more liberal than Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan. On foreign policy he is slightly more liberal than Bush II, but significantly more liberal than the previous three.

Oh, did you think a militarily active foreign policy was "conservative"? Or that invading our privacy, keeping massive government secrets, becoming far less transparent, was "conservative"? I hope you're not that ignorant, because the opposite is true. While liberalism does not require any of those things, conservativism does require small, accountable, transparent government that respects the law and civil rights. That *is* conservatism.

If his actions reflect his ideas, then he went into the presidency with a head full of very conservative ideas.

Name one. Maybe you're just under the delusion that the opposite of what you want is conservative? Or maybe you're just telling more lies, like that you gave even the slightest speed bump of an argument against me in regards to the time and information available to send in more support for our people in Benghazi?

Re:What could have been done? (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45323697)

And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown [...] he's just a placeholder

That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

It boils down to sins of omission vs. commission. Take ObamaCare as a sin of comission. Your choice of orifice:
Everything about it, from its origin as an applause line [hotair.com] to its passage [theothermccain.com] , to its capstone lie about liking your plan [hotair.com] , has been a steaming river of excrement. And that's merely a sampling of the rampant cronyism afoot.
On the omission side, consider border security. The only time Obama swings into commission mode is when swatting down States like Arizona.
Again, the only way to remain dispassionate about this is to recall that, a century after Woodrow, this is Weimar America. Subsequent creepiness is merely contextual.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45332929)

And that's why I refer to the no-talent rodeo clown [...] he's just a placeholder

That statement is counter to what you wrote earlier. You earlier tried to place a claim that he is doing terrible and dangerous things to our country, and now you are trying to claim that he is doing nothing at all. The two claims are, at the very least, completely incompatible.

It boils down to sins of omission vs. commission. Take ObamaCare as a sin of comission. Your choice of orifice:

That doesn't really address my point. It does point out another hole in your claim, however.

Everything about it, from its origin as an applause line to its passage, to its capstone lie about liking your plan, has been a steaming river of excrement. And that's merely a sampling of the rampant cronyism afoot.

Do you remember what President Lawnchair campaigned on in 2008? He said he was going to bring universal health care. And where is universal health care in the 2010 bailout? Nowhere. Between the two contradictory sides of your argument about what he is, the health care act places him far closer to your "rodeo clown" (why did you never call him that before this summer? I'd really like to know) than it does to the totalitarian dictator that you spend the other half of your posts trying to describe him as.

On the omission side, consider border security. The only time Obama swings into commission mode is when swatting down States like Arizona.

Whether he actually is taking action or not is debatable. Whether or not he should is a matter of whether or not you believe that the federal government should finance the extravagant policing and construction that the states by the Mexican border are asking for, as they certainly are not capable of doing it themselves. Anything that President Lawnchair proposes that is short of what Arpaio and company are asking for would be discarded as "soft" anyways.

Personally, I say we say final goodbyes to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona and tell them they can go be their own country, bankrolling their own border policies without the federal government. That would leave the US to only deal with the California border which in length is hardly anything by comparison. No Mexicans would want to cross the border into the new country, and they would know their chances of a successful illegal crossing through the California border would be reduced as well. Then the remaining 47 states could look at some meaningful immigration reform.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45311269)

Even if we departed from a base near Rome, Italy it would be more than 2 hours by air, that is is ignoring the amount of time to load the plane with the relevant materials for the fight.

DC was notified at 10 p.m. local time. The final assault was launched at 4 a.m., when mortars were dropped onto a building in the CIA annex, killing two Americans.

Quite simply, the window of time for the attack was too short for President Lawnchair to have been able to authorize counter action and have it effectively change the outcome.

Obviously false. If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today, and we'd have more justice done to the killers of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information officer Sean Smith.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45311323)

Look, if we don't studiously avoid dealing with all of the facts of Benghazi, then Hillary's waltz back to the White House in 2016 will be jeopardized.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45315545)

My favorite part about this is how damn_registrars pretends to actually have a grasp of the facts, but he knows nothing about that night except for the headlines. Until today, he didn't know anything about the second assault on the annex, didn't know the total length of time of the attacks, and so on, yet he is here pretending that he has sufficient facts to disprove your assertion. It's pathetic.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45315583)

If the Administration's behavior wasn't enough probable cause, one's lobotomy might be acting up.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45317791)

So after I showed that your claims don't actually reflect reality, you then dedicate a post to lying about me rather than actually approaching facts. I'm sorry that reality has such a negative effect on you and your ego.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45319415)

So after I showed that your claims don't actually reflect reality

Not even you could possibly believe that. I rebutted, very specifically, every single claim you made. Not a single claim you made against what I've written has been left standing, from your opening falsehood that 2 hours was insufficient time, to your final falsehood that three hours passed between attacks, and everything in between.

you then dedicate a post to lying about me rather than actually approaching facts

Again, you don't even believe any of that. I made no such post, and I am the one presenting the facts, while you're the one trying to twist the few facts told to you -- by me -- into a story that might possibly (but doesn't) work in your favor.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45321929)

Not even you could possibly believe that. I rebutted, very specifically, every single claim you made. Not a single claim you made against what I've written has been left standing, from your opening falsehood that 2 hours was insufficient time, to your final falsehood that three hours passed between attacks, and everything in between.

Pudge I would be interested in living in a world like yours, where utter bullshit becomes fact as a result of repetition and adherence to philosophy alone. Unfortunately I live in reality, which is not compatible with your philosophy. Your repetition of bullshit does not a meaningful argument make, nor does your insistence on your apparent god-given ability to create facts out of sheer will.

But of course I haven't expected a reasonable argument from you for years. You make a habit out of being a total asshole in discussion with me pretty much every single time you insert yourself into a discussion. I don't see a reason to be kind to you any further in this discussion or on anything that relates to these matters, as you can't be bothered to be reasonable towards me either. Go ahead, take the last word again, I don't care. You will likely declare yourself the winner because your fabrication of reality equates in your special world to be exactly equivalent to actually presenting a reasonable argument and behaving like a rational adult.

The rest of the world knows better.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45322587)

Let's see, reading your "comment" ... still no rebuttal against anything I wrote ... still none ... more ad hominems to distract from the point ... still no rebuttal.

Yeah, that's what we all thought.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45322679)

I would love, by the way, to see damn_registrars tell Greg Hicks or other Westerners in Libya that night that what I said about those events is, as he called it, "bullshit." That would be most amusing.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45323631)

I would offer a solemn bet
That, despite lion-roars on the internet,
damn_registrars, when he leaves his house,
More resembles a wee church mouse.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45312723)

DC was notified at 10 p.m. local time. The final assault was launched at 4 a.m.

That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today

That only makes sense if they had a reason to go there and had such a reason in time to act upon it. What characteristics of the first attack gave indication that a second attack would be launched soon on a separate building?

and we'd have more justice done to the killers of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information officer Sean Smith.

That is a lot of speculation. If we had sent troops from Italy as soon as we had information on the first attack, and no second attack was launched, you would be criticizing the president for being heavy handed. After all, President Lawnchair had told us we would not have "boots on the ground" in Libya, right? You would just be criticizing him for breaking another promise, regardless of what the outcome would have been. There is no response that he could have possibly authorized in response that would have satisfied you.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45313283)

That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

Not offhand, but it doesn't matter. Well before 4 a.m. (before 1:30), almost all (if not all) living Americans from the consulate were at the annex, having been rescued from there by a small rescue team (two special ops, five security contractors, from what I can tell) from Tripoli. The personnel were asking for protection and evacuation from Benghazi. If the administration had been able to mobilize a larger force, they still likely would have had plenty of time, and certainly would have had sufficient information, to get to the annex. They were there for nearly three hours before the 4 a.m. attack.

If they had gotten to the CIA annex in under six hours -- a very plausible amount of time to get from Italy or somewhere else we've got troops close by -- two Americans (Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods) could be alive today

That only makes sense if they had a reason to go there and had such a reason in time to act upon it.

Setting time aside, you're not really making a case. They were attacked a mile away. They were rescued and retreated through the streets to the annex. On what planet would they have NOT thought they were still a target?

Keep in mind that they all knew by this time they were being attacked by al Qaeda. The black flag of al Qaeda was flown everywhere in the region, they were credibly threatened just a few months before that they would be attacked, and then they were attacked, seeing those same black flags.

(On the credible threat -- which is not the point of this discussion, I know, but just to round it out -- al Qaeda said they would first attack the British consulate, then the Red Cross, then the American consulate ... and they had already attacked the Brits and Red Cross. They knew an attack was almost certainly coming. This was far more specific and credible and actionable than that supposedly damning PDB that told Bush that someone at some point might possibly fly a plan into a building. This is my best guess as to why Obama lied for so long about the cause of the attack, because they really did very clearly drop the ball on this.)

What characteristics of the first attack gave indication that a second attack would be launched soon on a separate building?

The fact that the terrorists clearly knew where they were (the evacuation through the streets was not covert), clearly were out to kill Americans (due to the known threats etc.), and there was no reason to think they would not continue their attack.

If we had sent troops from Italy as soon as we had information on the first attack, and no second attack was launched, you would be criticizing the president for being heavy handed. After all, President Lawnchair had told us we would not have "boots on the ground" in Libya, right? You would just be criticizing him for breaking another promise, regardless of what the outcome would have been.

You're lying.

When Obama said is that there would be no boots on the ground, he was not speaking in the context of a specific attack on American personnel, in which case I expect -- as almost all Americans do -- that he will do whatever it takes to rescue them. When I criticized Obama for violating the War Powers Resolution in Libya, it was in the context of a total lack of an attack on Americans (nor any specific congressional authorization), and thus he had no authority to use the military, boots on the ground or not. But in this situation, he very clearly had that authority under the War Powers Resolution. It's not even an issue, and neither is his "promise," which was made under a completely different context.

There is no response that he could have possibly authorized in response that would have satisfied you.

Not only you are you a liar, but you're a coward. I show you what could have been done, and knowing you cannot criticize my points directly very well, you choose instead to make up lies about how I wouldn't want him to do what I say.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year ago | (#45313529)

That is two separate buildings, though. Do you have evidence that they knew promptly after the attack on the first building that an attack on the annex was imminent?

Not offhand, but it doesn't matter.

Wrong, it does matter. As you pointed out

They were there for nearly three hours before the 4 a.m. attack.

Why should they have expected another attack to take place at a different location some three hours later?

They were rescued and retreated through the streets to the annex. On what planet would they have NOT thought they were still a target?

Why would they expect the attack to continue? Terrorism is supposed to be about being unpredictable. If people know where you are going to show up next you are not a very good terrorist.

Keep in mind that they all knew by this time they were being attacked by al Qaeda. The black flag of al Qaeda was flown everywhere in the region, they were credibly threatened just a few months before that they would be attacked, and then they were attacked, seeing those same black flags.

First of all, Al Qaeda is not the only organization that flies black flags. Second, when they do fly them it does not mean every time they are about to launch an attack (see above regarding terrorism). Third, if they were flying them

everywhere in the region

then that makes it really hard to predict where defense against them is needed.

The fact that the terrorists clearly knew where they were (the evacuation through the streets was not covert), clearly were out to kill Americans (due to the known threats etc.), and there was no reason to think they would not continue their attack.

You said yourself the distance between the attacks was only about a mile, and that some three hours passed between the attacks. Why would they expect another attack to happen after that much time had passed? You could march a collection of people that distance in a lot less than three hours, although what you cannot do in three hours is reasonably load up a C130 in Italy with troops and get it to Benghazi unless they were already prepared for a moment's notice departure well before (and even then your chances are not good).

Not only you are you a liar, but you're a coward

And now were back to insults. Goodbye pudge. If you actually want to have a civil conversation about this you are welcomed to try again later. Once again though you have proven you don't want to do that - at least, not with me.

Re:What could have been done? (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year ago | (#45315515)

Why should they have expected another attack to take place at a different location some three hours later?

Um. Why would the attackers stop attacking them just because they left the consulate? The attackers were there explicitly to kill them, not just to scare them.

First of all, Al Qaeda is not the only organization that flies black flags.

Um. So? These were not random black flags, these were the black flags of al Qaeda, as I said. You're not making any sense.

Second, when they do fly them it does not mean every time they are about to launch an attack

Um. So? My point was that the attackers were flying the al Qaeda flag.

Third, if they were flying them everywhere in the region then that makes it really hard to predict where defense against them is needed.

No, it's actually very simple, because they said what they were going to attack. You can say that makes them not-good terrorists, but them telling us where they were going to attack didn't seem to stop them, so ...

You said yourself the distance between the attacks was only about a mile, and that some three hours passed between the attacks. Why would they expect another attack to happen after that much time had passed?

I didn't say three hours passed between attacks. You incorrectly inferred that. I said the final assault began around then. The attacks on the annex actually began hours before.

And now were back to insults.

Yes, more feigned offense. You really think anyone believes that me insulting you for lying about me is somehow worse than you lying about me?

Look, the facts are clear:

* There was time and information sufficient to get more troops in there earlier and possibly save more American lives and take more terrorists (dead or alive)
* You don't know the facts at all, as I had to tell you some very basic and well-understood facts about what happened, and you said some very obviously false things about it, which means your initial assertions that there was insufficient opportunity to save them were based on significant ignorance
* You lied about me, saying I would have opposed Obama had he sent in troops, most likely to deflect attention away from the fact that you had no good arguments against the facts
* You pretended that I was the one breaching civility when I called you on your lies

And not only is this all clear to us, but it's also clear to us that it's clear to you, too.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?