Benghazi: That infected boil on the ass of Obama

Iam not sure why there is so many discrepancies with the events surrounding Sandy Hook. I can't say it is an effort to take guns or not. All I can say is the footage of the scene doesn't look like a crime scene you see people walking under caution tape Police standing around not really doing anything. Way to many accounts of people showing where an orchestrated event possibly took place and documentation stating Sandy Hook Elementary had been empty. If the plan is to confiscate guns it won't happen right now anyway. They'll try to do a "Turn in your Gun Campaign first to see if any one buys it. Most Police Depts won't support such an effort .I am not really that worried about it. I don't see anything wrong with extensive and verifiable background checks to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and those with a history of mental illness. But the confiscation of Firearms from law abiding trained citizens, no. Originally Posted by acp5762

So that's a NO, right?

You've tacitly admitted that the US military had the capability to intervene when you didn't contest the claims. You've lost that argument already. So now we have to ask why do you accept the fact that Obama let those men die? What is there festering inside you that makes you so dead to a terrible act that you will defend a piece of shit because of politics. You know what a hypocrite is Munchie? I think they are the worst kind of liar because they more than just lying to themselves. Telling yourself that you don't need to lose some weight is one kind of lie but to find yourself lying about something that you claim to really care about, your philosophy so to speak is something far worse. That is you and several others here who claim to care about our country, our military, and the people in this country. You've sold your soul to the democratic party and Barack Obama. I suspect he got it very cheap.

http://www.pjsinnam.com/VN_History/Stories/First_AR.htm

Seems like the first in flight helo refueling took place a month after you said that it did and it wasn't real. Used a dummy boom. The link shows a message with time and date. Looking pretty shaky for you Munchie.

Of course maybe the people who put together the webpage for HSC-12 made a mistake, maybe the people on the USS Guam made a mistake. This difference is that you are calling me a liar but I am only suggesting that you made a mistake. I guess I have more class...well that is not a guess that is a stone cold fact.

http://usafhpa.org/specialinterest/c...fueltests.html Personal account of first inflight helo refueling in December of 1965.

Still digging but I guess you could always ask Rear Admiral Charles Saffell. He was the commanding officer during the ops.

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan1.htm

5 Jan
With Operation EASTERN EXIT, the U.S. Ambassador, the Soviet ambassador, and 193 additional foreign nationals evacuated in four helicopter roundtrips from U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia to USS GUAM and USS TRENTON. The rescue operation was initiated from a range of 460 miles, and involved the first in-flight night refueling of helicopters by USMC KC-130s. 60 U.S. Marines provided rear security until 48-hour evacuation completed. Evacuees taken to undisclosed location for processing and return to respective countries.

Snick

Did you think this was going to go away?

To sum up.

Let me tell you assholes a little story. A navy ship was sitting outside the Straits of Hormuz in 1991. They were celebrating New Years Day when they got the message that the embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia was in trouble. The next day two ships headed for Somalia at maximum cruising speed. 600 miles away the people from two dozen different embassies converged on the American embassy that was guarded by US Marines. 281 people huddled in fear of the revolutionaries outside the walls. The situation, according to the US ambassador, had deteriorated to the point that immediate help was necessary. From 500 miles CH-53s were launched at 0200 from one ship. This was beyond the range that they could return from. This was going to be a one way trip. The 60 Marines and SEAL team were all volunteers. They arrived after an inflight refueling, the first one at night, and found 100 terrorists trying to come over the wall. The aircraft literally blew some of the terrorists off the wall as the Marines deployed. Air support was given by a C-130 gunship orbiting overhead. One aircraft removed some of the more urgent cases and returned to the ship with another in air refueling. The Marines hunkered down for 24 hours until the two ships closed the distance to begin a general evacuation. On January 6th 281 people from 30 different countries, the Marines, and the SEAL team evacuated to the ships miles off shore. No one was killed, everyone was rescued, and that is what is supposed to happen. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/eastern_exit.htm
The 6th Fleet including their MARG was closer than 600 miles. It was about 120 miles away. They also had CH-53 helos and Marines. They were two hours away. A hostage rescue team was four hours away. Air support like the C-130 gunship was two hours away. The embassy had no wall over eight feet tall. There were no armed Marines at the embassy or guarding the ambassador. All of this is on the shoulders of the Obama White House and State Department. They did not order a rescue, they did not secure the embassy prior to the attack, they recalled the Marine contingent.
This event should result in criminal prosecutions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama should face impeachment. This is what scares Hillary (and her future plans) but I don't think Obama has the brains to be scared. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The following response asked 3 questions.
[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105267714 3]
One way flight?
If the helicopters could be refueled inflight on the way there, why not on the way back?
Do you ever even read or think about what you cut and paste?[/QUOTE]
You of course answered none of them.
And of course Mr. Class himself, started in with the name calling.

You should be embarassed I have to explain it to you Munchie. The helos left my ship with enough fuel to get to Mogandishu if they refueled on the way which they did. When they got to the embassy they did not have the fuel to return until the ships got closer which we were all the time. That is a one way flight dummie. They could not return without special support. Did you miss that part where I pointed out that this was the first time that navy helicopters refueled AT NIGHT in flight. Don't be as stupid as FuckZup. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You ignored my reasons why this wasn't a one-way-flight and reiterated your claim this was the first time that in flight refueling was done at night.

Explain to me? Don't worry about it.
You are a self-explanatory guy.
http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/hsc12/Pages/CommandHistory.aspx
"addition to being the first HS squadron on the West Coast, the squadron boasts a long list of first and unique achievements that attest to the professional caliber and dedication of its officers and sailors. HS-2 was the first ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) helicopter squadron to deploy with the Sikorsky SH-3A Sea King, the Navy's first turbine powered all-weather ASW helicopter. HS-2 was also the first SH-3 squadron to operationally employ Helicopter In-flight Refueling (HIFR) at night. In November 1965, an HS-2 helicopter recorded the longest operational flight at the time. The aircraft remained airborne for 11 hours and 18 minutes on a search and rescue mission in the Gulf of Tonkin with the help of four HIFR's, three of which were at night."
That's strange. This article says that HIFRs were first done 26 years prior to the date you imply.
So.
You've been caught lying again.
And to top it all off, you had a chance to take my rebuke in little girl fashion by crying and pissing yourself.
You had the chance to crawl away and lick your wounds.
But no. You decided to prove I couldn't successfully hit a golf ball off a tee that you had clamped between your teeth. You were right.
It's strange tamping down a divot made out of lips.
From your own "I cut this but didn't read it" cut and paste:
One aircraft removed some of the more urgent cases and returned to the ship with another in air refueling
From your own provided link:
At 0247 on the morning of 5 January, at a distance of 466 nautical miles from Mogadishu, the USS Guam launched the two CH-53Es with a 60-man security force, including a 9-man US Navy sea-air-land (SEAL) team. The flight required two aerial refuelings en route from KC-130 (Land based) aircraft. The first guaranteed enough fuel to reach the embassy compound; the second provided enough fuel to begin the return flight to the ships.
You lied, you didn't read, and your attempted theft of glory is noted.
All which are your typical MO.
Then you publicly demanded to be bitch slapped.
Consider it done.
Anything else to say? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Do you even know what a CH-53 is? Is is a fuel hog. It is not the Sea King, It is not the HS-2. The things are so damn big that we had to reballast when they left. I don't know why you wrote about the C-130 being landbased, no one said otherwise. Read your own paste, they got enough fuel to BEGIN the return flight. That means they didn't have enough fuel dummy. They HAD to wait for us to close the distance. In flight refueling (nice use of a acronym) is dangerous and more so at night.........wait a minute, I just thought of this. You're admitting that things could have been done in Benghazi but too much of a chicken shit to admit it directly. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I will deal with your lies and house of cards logic at the proper time. Actually, no, I won’t. Tim Page already slapped your eyebrows off. That’s good enough for me. So now that you've admitted that Obama fell down on the job, that we had assets close enough to help, then why didn't he do anything? Answer that question because that is what this post is all about? Start your own post about aircraft capabilities. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

[QUOTE=Munchmasterman;105268265 5]Nice try. I said the C-130 was land based to point out the refueling operation didn't rely on ship based aircraft. A C-130 tanker can stay on station a long time. Plus the link said C-130"S" when referring to the tankers.

My paste said enough fuel to begin the return trip. Because why the fuck would they refuel at the target?
You said refuel once, the link you obviously didn't read said two refueling operations.
You lied again.

I noticed you made no mention of your own words. You know, where you said that " One aircraft removed some of the more urgent cases and returned to the ship with another in air refueling" where you contradict yourself and claim the chopper could make it back.

Which is it douche-bag? Could they only make it there with in-flight refueling or could they use the same method to return to the ship?

As far as admitting anything about Benghazi, I don't lump things together like you do in an attempt to confuse the issue and hide any lies like you do. I haven't made it to the second story because we're still trying to fix the first one.

And of course the deeper you dig your hole the more shit you talk. I'm chicken shit because I called you out on your lies? You are too much a coward to tell the truth.

A central theme to the first story was aircraft capability. Wrong information of course but it happens to be part of the limitations of the mission in both stories.

And finally you want me to answer a question based, at best, on your opinion.

Sorry Charlie, answer your own stupid question.
My question is when will you post something that is lie free?[/QUOTE]

You've tacitly admitted that the US military had the capability to intervene when you didn't contest the claims. You've lost that argument already. So now we have to ask why do you accept the fact that Obama let those men die? What is there festering inside you that makes you so dead to a terrible act that you will defend a piece of shit because of politics. You know what a hypocrite is Munchie? I think they are the worst kind of liar because they more than just lying to themselves. Telling yourself that you don't need to lose some weight is one kind of lie but to find yourself lying about something that you claim to really care about, your philosophy so to speak is something far worse. That is you and several others here who claim to care about our country, our military, and the people in this country. You've sold your soul to the democratic party and Barack Obama. I suspect he got it very cheap. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your hatred for America is something best described by Stephen King. It’s green, pulsing and increases in size by the day. The idea you can vilify over half the population, just because they disagree with you politically, shows how far gone you are.
Was it being RIFed by the military that turned you against America? Since by even a douche-bag such as your self’s best evidence can prove, the country is trying to get back on it’s feet. Which is amazing with the people who would see us fail just to prove some self-loathing generated hatred of our President.

How about some verbatim examples of my hypocrisy? Show some examples or be known as a cowardly baby-shaker who lost the only fight he has ever been in….to a girl.

http://www.pjsinnam.com/VN_History/Stories/First_AR.htm Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Seems like the first in flight helo refueling took place a month after you said that it did and it wasn't real. See? You don’t even make sense. If it wasn’t real, it wasn’t the first. DUH! Whirly spending an hour sucking you, after you eat 10 viagras, isn’t the same as getting laid Used a dummy boom. The link shows a message with time and date. Looking pretty shaky for you Munchie.
Of course maybe the people who put together the webpage for HSC-12 made a mistake, maybe the people on the USS Guam made a mistake. This difference is that you are calling me a liar but I am only suggesting that you made a mistake. I guess I have more class...well that is not a guess that is a stone cold fact.
http://usafhpa.org/specialinterest/ch3artests/h3airrefueltests.html Personal account of first inflight helo refueling in December of 1965.
Still digging but I guess you could always ask Rear Admiral Charles Saffell. He was the commanding officer during the ops.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan1.htm
5 Jan
With Operation EASTERN EXIT, the U.S. Ambassador, the Soviet ambassador, and 193 additional foreign nationals evacuated in four helicopter roundtrips from U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia to USS GUAM and USS TRENTON. The rescue operation was initiated from a range of 460 miles, and involved the first in-flight night refuelingof helicopters by USMC KC-130s. 60 U.S. Marines provided rear security until 48-hour evacuation completed. Evacuees taken to undisclosed location for processing and return to respective countries. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Interesting that a person on a ship with helicopters doesn’t know that HIFR was originally done while the helicopter was hovering above a ship. It was refueled without the danger of landing at night on an unstable ship

And you didn’t know that.

Why didn’t you know that?

Things are looking just as shaky for you as they always do.

You are a liar and the level of class you have is as low as it has always been.

Like I said, it was first done in 1965, 26 years prior to your heroic action. The night, in flight refueling you refer to was only the first time USMC C-130s were used for the task. It wasn’t the first HIFR done at night by a long shot. The group who’s info I posted didn’t claim to be the first. They were the first operational group to do it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1 &source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGUQFjAI &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gerlecre ek.com%2Fcoolplaces%2Fpamphlet trial1c.docm&ei=TsZsUa-FKo7uqAHCyIHQCg&usg=AFQjCNHDp_ Q_NLe4LnhGL9ohskcFCxBIDg&sig2= UqJdw5SqWZ1A4VI1nliQ6w

June 1965. – An SH-3A from HS-2 flew non-stop from Seattle, WA, to NAAS Imperial Beach, CA, a distance of over 1,000 nautical miles, using the newly developed Helicopter In-flight Refueling (HIFR) capability to take fuel from USS O’Brien (DD-725) about 100 miles west of San Francisco. During the spring of 1965, working under the auspices of RADM Evan P. Aurand, Commander, ASW Group One, HS-2 had developed the capability to take fuel from destroyers while hovering alongside. HIFR was used extensively in the Gulf of Tonkin to extend the endurance of helicopters operating independently from aircraft carriers. In November 1965, an SH-3A from HS-2 remained airborne 11 hours and 18 minutes during a CSAR mission in the Gulf with the help of four HIFRs, three of them at night.

Answer this question.

Why isn’t the truth enough for you?

I point out your lies, time after time, but you keep doing it.

A side note.
What happened to that teaching gig? I noticed your posting pattern didn’t change at Christmas.

Was that because at your new job you don’t get 2 weeks off?

How many wounded children from Sandy Hook have been interviewed? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Before or after they got bombed in Boston ....

.......... while in their reserved seating at the finish?

They may have some in Boston.

Anything to say jd?

Didn't think so.

I didn't see that you had posted you swine. (trying to class this place up some) I recounted a story that I was a participant of and you were not. I go with the information that was passed down to me. I don't think you understand how ships at sea operate. Ignorance or stupidity? That is the question about you. When the CH-53s left the ship they had enough fuel to get to where they were going (Mogandishu) if they refueled on the way. They did. When they landed in the embassy compound they did not have enough fuel to return to where the ship was. Very important to note that the ship was now about 60 miles closer than we they left. We are always moving. When the other helo lifted off with injuried it had to refuel again and by the time it got back the ship was another 40 miles closer. You have to think of moving targets and not stationary targets. Part of ship handling is to understand that when you approach another ship you are both moving. You can make any idiotic comment you want but I was there and challenged anyone else here to come forward and say the same.

The point of the original post, which you seem to have forgot or want to get us to forget, is that assests were availabe but were never given the orders to move. That is epic failure and dereliction by Obama. For this reason, and the lies to cover it up, he should be brought up on charges of impeachment.

that's rich, BSwine calling ANYBODY a swine!

You give pigs a bad name, BSwine... Or is that BS Whine?

I didn't see that you had posted you swine. (trying to class this place up some) I recounted a story that I was a participant of and you were not. I go with the information that was passed down to me. I don't think you understand how ships at sea operate. Ignorance or stupidity? That is the question about you. When the CH-53s left the ship they had enough fuel to get to where they were going (Mogandishu) if they refueled on the way. They did. When they landed in the embassy compound they did not have enough fuel to return to where the ship was. Very important to note that the ship was now about 60 miles closer than we they left. We are always moving. When the other helo lifted off with injuried it had to refuel again and by the time it got back the ship was another 40 miles closer. You have to think of moving targets and not stationary targets. Part of ship handling is to understand that when you approach another ship you are both moving. You can make any idiotic comment you want but I was there and challenged anyone else here to come forward and say the same.

The point of the original post, which you seem to have forgot or want to get us to forget, is that assests were availabe but were never given the orders to move. That is epic failure and dereliction by Obama. For this reason, and the lies to cover it up, he should be brought up on charges of impeachment. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Too listen to you babble you were rowing the boat when Washington crossed the Delaware.

I didn't see that you had posted you swine. (trying to class this place up some) I recounted a story that I was a participant of and you were not. I go with the information that was passed down to me. I don't think you understand how ships at sea operate. Ignorance or stupidity? That is the question about you. When the CH-53s left the ship they had enough fuel to get to where they were going (Mogandishu) if they refueled on the way. They did. When they landed in the embassy compound they did not have enough fuel to return to where the ship was. Very important to note that the ship was now about 60 miles closer than we they left. We are always moving. When the other helo lifted off with injuried it had to refuel again and by the time it got back the ship was another 40 miles closer. You have to think of moving targets and not stationary targets. Part of ship handling is to understand that when you approach another ship you are both moving. You can make any idiotic comment you want but I was there and challenged anyone else here to come forward and say the same.

The point of the original post, which you seem to have forgot or want to get us to forget, is that assests were availabe but were never given the orders to move. That is epic failure and dereliction by Obama. For this reason, and the lies to cover it up, he should be brought up on charges of impeachment. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How do you explain the concepts of cause and effect to a complete moron? Or the sun rising every morning? Or trying to convince them not to drink their own piss? I always hated telling the kids, when all reason or facts failed, that most abused phrase “because I said so.” Any time you ask to be taken at your word, you better make damn sure you are right.
And this time I am.

If they could refuel on the way there, they could refuel on the way back. The douche-bag said so himself.
It started out correcting his typical plethora of mis-statements, outright lies, and acts of omission that totally misrepresent almost any given situation and turned into a convoluted attempt to salvage the tiniest shred of self-esteem.
At which he has once again failed. Failed in reaching the most insignificant goal.

The OP compares 2 completely different scenarios and circumstances and makes, in everyone’s eyes except the OPer’s, a lame ass attempt to show inaction on the part of the President.

This claim made by someone who doesn’t know what HLFR really is and uses terms like re-ballasting. You’re right about me being ignorant about some on shipboard operations.
But the difference between us is that my ignorance can be fixed by doing research. Your stupidity can’t.

I found no source that referred to “re-ballasting”. Many referred to “de-ballasting” and “ballasting”. It’s done by automatic systems. You wouldn’t feel it or hear it. They just take on water or get rid of it. The officer in charge of that function would punch in the new weight. They also trim the ship for different speeds in different sea conditions.

I’m at a loss for the proper adjective to describe a person who refutes their own argument in one breath and then asks us to take his version of the incident, despite multiple sources that contradict what he says, at face value.
And that isn't going to happen.

So, to sum up, you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Why?

Because I said so.

I didn't see that you had posted you swine. (trying to class this place up some) I recounted a story that I was a participant of and you were not. I go with the information that was passed down to me. I don't think you understand how ships at sea operate. Ignorance or stupidity? That is the question about you. When the CH-53s left the ship they had enough fuel to get to where they were going (Mogandishu) if they refueled on the way. They did. When they landed in the embassy compound they did not have enough fuel to return to where the ship was. Very important to note that the ship was now about 60 miles closer than we they left. We are always moving. When the other helo lifted off with injuried it had to refuel again and by the time it got back the ship was another 40 miles closer. You have to think of moving targets and not stationary targets. Part of ship handling is to understand that when you approach another ship you are both moving. You can make any idiotic comment you want but I was there and challenged anyone else here to come forward and say the same.

You seem to be the poster child for eye-witnesses giving totally inaccurate accounts of what happened right in front of them.

The point of the original post, which you seem to have forgot or want to get us to forget, is that assests were availabe but were never given the orders to move. That is epic failure and dereliction by Obama. For this reason, and the lies to cover it up, he should be brought up on charges of impeachment. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

"Charges of impeachment"?

Not those!

(All right, you got me. What are charges of impeachment?)

How do you explain the concepts of cause and effect to a complete moron? Or the sun rising every morning? Or trying to convince them not to drink their own piss? I always hated telling the kids, when all reason or facts failed, that most abused phrase “because I said so.” Any time you ask to be taken at your word, you better make damn sure you are right.
And this time I am.

If they could refuel on the way there, they could refuel on the way back. The douche-bag said so himself.
It started out correcting his typical plethora of mis-statements, outright lies, and acts of omission that totally misrepresent almost any given situation and turned into a convoluted attempt to salvage the tiniest shred of self-esteem.
At which he has once again failed. Failed in reaching the most insignificant goal.

The OP compares 2 completely different scenarios and circumstances and makes, in everyone’s eyes except the OPer’s, a lame ass attempt to show inaction on the part of the President.

This claim made by someone who doesn’t know what HLFR really is and uses terms like re-ballasting. You’re right about me being ignorant about some on shipboard operations.
But the difference between us is that my ignorance can be fixed by doing research. Your stupidity can’t.

I found no source that referred to “re-ballasting”. Many referred to “de-ballasting” and “ballasting”. It’s done by automatic systems. You wouldn’t feel it or hear it. They just take on water or get rid of it. The officer in charge of that function would punch in the new weight. They also trim the ship for different speeds in different sea conditions.

I’m at a loss for the proper adjective to describe a person who refutes their own argument in one breath and then asks us to take his version of the incident, despite multiple sources that contradict what he says, at face value.
And that isn't going to happen.

So, to sum up, you really don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

Why?

Because I said so. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No response?

That's probably best.

http://www.pjsinnam.com/VN_History/Stories/First_AR.htm

Seems like the first in flight helo refueling took place a month after you said that it did and it wasn't real. Used a dummy boom. The link shows a message with time and date. Looking pretty shaky for you Munchie.

Of course maybe the people who put together the webpage for HSC-12 made a mistake, maybe the people on the USS Guam made a mistake. This difference is that you are calling me a liar but I am only suggesting that you made a mistake. I guess I have more class...well that is not a guess that is a stone cold fact.

http://usafhpa.org/specialinterest/c...fueltests.html Personal account of first inflight helo refueling in December of 1965.

Still digging but I guess you could always ask Rear Admiral Charles Saffell. He was the commanding officer during the ops.

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsjan1.htm

5 Jan
With Operation EASTERN EXIT, the U.S. Ambassador, the Soviet ambassador, and 193 additional foreign nationals evacuated in four helicopter roundtrips from U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu, Somalia to USS GUAM and USS TRENTON. The rescue operation was initiated from a range of 460 miles, and involved the first in-flight night refueling of helicopters by USMC KC-130s. 60 U.S. Marines provided rear security until 48-hour evacuation completed. Evacuees taken to undisclosed location for processing and return to respective countries. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Amen brother JD!

Brother JD is getting his ass handed to him....he made up a bunch of shit that sounded good if you didn't know better, problem is Munch csught him in lie after lie. This Benghazi shit is like the Vince Foster crap, just waterbreak talk for the far right. Oh and JD quit digging unless you plan on learning Chinese!