Ambassador

Only option I have is view in dark mode.

I had the '94 Impala SS. I bought the 1st one sold in Louisiana at Gerry Lane in Baton Rouge. It was a limited production auto. Loved that car and it would fly.

I have received a few offers of trade on a trailer we have for sale on FB Marketplace. That many different offers have to be a scam. Just don't know how they pull it off.

What am I missing?

I am looking forward to shooting and hunting with this rifle. I have been using a Marlin 30-30 with great success but can now hunt areas where more range is needed. I had a scope rail installed and now looking for the right scope.

I wonder if this part of the story is true.

[link=(285119413864)]Washington Times[/link] Sorry for the ads in the middle of the story. I could not find a copy without them. The text of the article is below to make it easier to read.

The original post on this board was removed for some reason. It stirred up a stink. I am convinced it is true.

TRR: Is a General losing his job over Benghazi?

(Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.

On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force.” News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, “Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. “Kip” Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, “the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years.” Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.

However on October 26, “Ambassador” posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):

I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.

quote:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply said the wrong thing to the wrong people. Perhaps he gave whomever he was talking to up the chain a piece of his mind about leaving Americans to die when there was a chance of saving them. At the very least U.S. forces might have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene. The Obama White House is famously vindictive against perceived disloyalty – the administration would not let Ham get away with scolding them for failing to show the leadership necessary to save American lives. The Army’s ethos is to leave no man behind, but that is not shared by a president accustomed to leading from that location.

The question remains why the repeated requests – which is to say desperate pleas – to send a relief force were refused. Perhaps Mr. Obama and his national security brain trust thought the terrorist assault would be a minor skirmish and quickly blow over. When it became clear that the attack was something more serious, they may have had visions of the rescue team getting involved in a Mogadishu-like firefight, a “Blackhawk Down 2.” This would have been too much for the risk-averse Mr. Obama, particularly in a Muslim country, and less than two months before the election. Instead they simply watched the live video hoped for the best. If there were American fatalities, they felt they could shift blame for the circumstance to the supposed Youtube video which they had already blamed for the riot at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier. In fact the Embassy had sent out its “apology” tweets even before the Cairo riot commenced.

Hillary Clinton’s freakishly bizarre statement on September 14 is also worth noting. At a memorial service to the fallen she told Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that “we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed Tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened.

But since when does the Secretary of State feel it is her duty to promise to have an American filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? For all the bowing and scraping to Islam that has gone on in the last four years, blasphemy against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. The First Amendment still exists. It is strange that Mrs. Clinton believed that the parents of the slain Americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing. But as Mr. Woods said, he “could tell that she was not telling me the truth.” Indeed the truth has been the fifth casualty in this entire tragic affair.



UPDATE: On Sunday October 28 I received the following communique from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little:

“The insinuations in your story are flat wrong. General Ham is an outstanding leader of AFRICOM. Future leadership changes at this important command have absolutely nothing to do with the attack on American personnel in Benghazi. The leadership changes have been long planned.”

Of course I never suggested that General Ham was anything other than an outstanding leader of AFRICOM and in fact said as much. But why is an outstanding leader of this important command leaving after less than two years when all other combatant commanders have longer tenures? General Ham’s predecessor stayed in the job much longer and was generally less well regarded. Further discussion of these issues may help begin to restore the administration’s credibility on the Benghazi issue.



UPDATE 2: On Monday October 29 General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, released the following statement:

“The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.”

Please tell me the girl in the GIF is not really the agent in charge.

quote:

---

I dunno, ya might be getting the britches put on you.

---

That is what I am trying to determine. This was a brand new turbo and did not even have 1000 miles on it. When I took the truck back to them it was still running but the turbo was making an awful noise.

The previous week they did tell me they thought the veins in the turbo had been frozen and was not opening.

The company that sold me the engine has not done right by me. First they sent an engine core that the studs on the head gaskets were not oiled nor seated properly. They sent a replacement engine and shipped the original back to Houston. Then we find out they sent the wrong heads. When those were replaced they sent two drivers side heads, not one for each side. Supposedly there is one for each side for a 2006 model. On the third set of heads we finally got it all together. The company then did not refund me my core deposit and has quit responding to my calls and texts.

quote:

---

It sounds like, from your description, you might need a new turbo, but how is that going to be $20K?

---

The $20K was for the refurbished engine core and all the new parts required for the engine warranty, including a new turbo, water pump, etc. All together, the engine, parts, and labor came to $20K.

Now I am told there are metal shavings in the engine core and the new engine would need to be replaced along with the turbo.

I hate that I spent $20K on this but I may need to cut my losses and move on.

I got some bad news yesterday. I have been working a long time to get a replacement engine in my 2006 Chevy 3500 and finally got it back three weeks ago. One of the reasons I had such a long wait was due to problems my mechanic found with the refurbished engine core. The Houston company made it right but my mechanic still questioned the quality of work this company did with the refurbishing.

So after getting the truck back it performed well. Then I hooked up a trailer and it did not have the power to pull it correctly and then my turbo started making a bad noise when pulling and not pulling a trailer. Upon inspection the mechanic found that the turbo was not getting oil from the engine and had shredded putting metal threads into the engine.

My question is the mechanic states that there is a block limiting the flow of oil to the turbo in the engine core. Is that a real possible cause? Could the restricted oil flow be caused from the install of the turbo? I don't want to just take his word on this due to the fact this is a $20K mistake he would be responsible for if it was from his error?

I will ask another mechanic shop tomorrow when they open but am curious if anyone has some input on this New Years Day.

Have two seats with seatbacks in Section 420, Row 41 to LSU vs Oklahoma tonight for $50.

Email me at caneytiger@gmail.com