Benghazi - The Nightmare Is Over!

maineman said:
Bravo... Everybody...democrats AND republicans all talked tough about Saddam in the days before 9/11...but that day changed everything. As you may recall, I was fully supportive of Bush's actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy to let me back on active duty to help in any way I could to defeat the folks who attacked us. Saddam was not part of that. Iraq was not part of that. OBL was... Al Qaeda was... Not Saddam, not Iraq. I would have vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if Bill Clinton had been president. Hell... I would have opposed it if JFK or even FDR had been president. My opposition to the war in Iraq never has had a thing to do with partisan politics. Your support for Bush, on the other hand, has EVERYTHING to do with party. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Was your "Navy" in your bathtub?
 
maineman said:
he has followed ME around for two days now reading every post I write and groaning it. I can only guess his motivation for such behavior.
Click to expand...
certainly no need to guess....I've explained it quite clearly......by the way, I haven't actually read all your posts....that would have been a waste of my time....
 
and your "explanation" is so gay, I almost can't believe you would put it down "on paper" for everyone to read. "Dude 'groans' me so because I have HIM on ignore, I am going to sit and wait for you to post and as soon as you do, I'm going to 'groan' you because I don't like you and I don't like Dude but I can't groan him because I have him on ignore, so there! That will teach the both of you SOME lesson, I'm sure. harummph!" Do you realize what a flaming fag that makes you seem?
 
007 said:
Was your "Navy" in your bathtub?
Click to expand...

nope... five afloat commands... two in the Pacific, one out of Pearl and the other out of Alemeda, and three in the Atlantic, one out of Newport and two out of Norfolk. Several shore tours stateside and overseas. Great life, the Navy... I got to see the whole freakin' world, almost. That's me standing on the top of Cheops, the great pyramid at Giza in 1981. What branch did you serve in?
 
maineman said:
Bravo... Everybody...democrats AND republicans all talked tough about Saddam in the days before 9/11...but that day changed everything. As you may recall, I was fully supportive of Bush's actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy to let me back on active duty to help in any way I could to defeat the folks who attacked us. Saddam was not part of that. Iraq was not part of that. OBL was... Al Qaeda was... Not Saddam, not Iraq. I would have vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if Bill Clinton had been president. Hell... I would have opposed it if JFK or even FDR had been president. My opposition to the war in Iraq never has had a thing to do with partisan politics. Your support for Bush, on the other hand, has EVERYTHING to do with party. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Did you support the invasion of Iraq in 1991 ? Just curious, its really irrelevant to our debate.

and your opposition to the war in 2003 isn't surprising......I remember Jimmy Carter jumping up and down opposing war both times, 1991 and 2003...incidentally...

on Bush, Iraq and 9/11.....neither did Bush or his administration
That distortion was dreamed up by the lefties like MSNBC's Chris Mathews I believe....

http://floppingaces.net/2008/09/13/did-president-bush-link-saddam-hussein-to-911/

http://newsbusters.org/node/2791
 
I was perfectly supportive of booting Iraq out of Kuwait. Once we had done that, Bush Sr. wisely ended our military incursion. I think he made a mistake in giving the shiites the distinct impression that, if they rose up against Saddam in the south, that we would support them...they did, and we didn't, and they got slaughtered which only served to hurt our reputation and strengthen the regional reputation of Iran amongst the area's shiites.

The evidence is there that Bush and Rummy were looking for a way to bring Iraq into our gunsights even before invading Afghanistan, but saner heads prevailed and Afghanistan, which I supported, was invaded first... then, rather than keep our focus on Al Qaeda, our real enemies, Dubya just couldn't wait to start a really BIG war and be a wartime president so we shifted targets, away from OBL at Tora Bora and onto Saddam and Iraq (which were NOT our enemies and Saddam was doing a good job at keeping islamic extremists out of Iraq, and in serving as an effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony... things we have been unable to do as well as he did), and Dubya lost my support, which he had firmly had, at that moment and never got it back.
 
and yet, the media is now reporting on Benghazi. Links to all at the site:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/05/weekend-wrap-up-of-benghazi-coverage-notable-quotes/

The weekend’s media coverage on Benghazi brought in some notable quotes and points of interest:

Petraeus: talking points “essentially useless”

When the Benghazi talking points were being reviewed and revised by other agencies after the September 2012 attack, former CIA Director David Petraeus indicated that the revised talking points were “essentially useless.”

In emails obtained by ABC News, Petraeus is also quoted as saying, “I would just as soon not use them. But it’s their [the White House’s] call.” h/t HotAir

NY Times’ Dowd: admin’s behavior before and during Benghazi “unworthy of the greatest power on earth”

In a Sunday Op-Ed in the NY Times entitled When Myths Collide in the Capital, Maureen Dowd opines on Benghazi and it includes some harsh criticism for the White House:

The administration’s behavior before and during the attack in Benghazi, in which four Americans died, was unworthy of the greatest power on earth.

She describes the competing narratives as Déjà Vu reminiscent of the Clinton years. h/t Breitbart

THE capital is in the throes of déjà vu and preview as it plunges back into Clinton Rules, defined by a presidential aide on the hit ABC show “Scandal” as damage control that goes like this: “It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true, it’s old news.”

NBC’s David Gregory: Carney’s explanation on revised Benghazi talking points “not accurate”

In an earlier post here at Legal Insurrection, we also noted that NBC’s David Gregory Called Carney’s Explanation on Revised Benghazi Talking Points “Not Accurate”. Gregory asks Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who has led the state department’s review of Benghazi, “is the administration guilty of playing politics with terrorism?” Watch the video.

Rep. Mike Rogers: “I do think we’re going to see more whistle-blowers”

Congressional Republicans called Sunday for depositions of high-ranking officials and more testimony from whistle-blowers, indicating that additional whistle-blowers have contacted congressional committees since three others testified last week. From FOX News:

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told “Fox News Sunday” that more potential and self-proclaimed “whistle-blowers” might come forward after three of them – career State Department foreign service employees – testified last week before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee.

“We have had people come forward because of the (hearing) and say we would also like to talk,” the Michigan Republican told “Fox News Sunday.” “I do think we’re going to see more whistle-blowers. Certainly my committee has been contacted; I think other committees as well.”

Rogers’ remarks came as Thomas Pickering, the former U.S. ambassador who helped write a report on security at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, defended his assessment but absolved Clinton.

Robert Gates: some Benghazi critics have “cartoonish” view of military capability

Meanwhile, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described some critics of Benghazi as having a “cartoonish” view of military capability. He scoffed at critics’ suggestions that the presence of an aircraft overhead might have served as a deterrent or that a small number of special forces could have been sent in to assist during the 2012 attack.

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”
Click to expand...
 
maineman said:
What the fuck are you talking about? it wasn't called the Iraq WAR resolution. Did Rush tell you that?

and again... you want to say that words have meanings, except those times when you want them to mean something different. THERE IS NO DOUBT is, and has always been a group of words preceding a statement of fact. I HAVE NO DOUBT is, and has always been, a group of words preceding the statement of an opinion.

And no democratic office holder EVER expressed absolute certainty about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.

and the doubt was not me or democrats, the doubts came from within his own administration, his own intelligence organizations. To claim no doubt when doubt certainly existed -even among his own team - that's just a lie, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton bombed Iraq over WMD. Was that an act of war?
 
maineman said:
Bravo... Everybody...democrats AND republicans all talked tough about Saddam in the days before 9/11...but that day changed everything. As you may recall, I was fully supportive of Bush's actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy to let me back on active duty to help in any way I could to defeat the folks who attacked us. Saddam was not part of that. Iraq was not part of that. OBL was... Al Qaeda was... Not Saddam, not Iraq. I would have vehemently opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 if Bill Clinton had been president. Hell... I would have opposed it if JFK or even FDR had been president. My opposition to the war in Iraq never has had a thing to do with partisan politics. Your support for Bush, on the other hand, has EVERYTHING to do with party. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Yet you look the other way way while Obama conducts preemptive wars.
 
maineman said:
I was perfectly supportive of booting Iraq out of Kuwait. Once we had done that, Bush Sr. wisely ended our military incursion. I think he made a mistake in giving the shiites the distinct impression that, if they rose up against Saddam in the south, that we would support them...they did, and we didn't, and they got slaughtered which only served to hurt our reputation and strengthen the regional reputation of Iran amongst the area's shiites.

The evidence is there that Bush and Rummy were looking for a way to bring Iraq into our gunsights even before invading Afghanistan, but saner heads prevailed and Afghanistan, which I supported, was invaded first... then, rather than keep our focus on Al Qaeda, our real enemies, Dubya just couldn't wait to start a really BIG war and be a wartime president so we shifted targets, away from OBL at Tora Bora and onto Saddam and Iraq (which were NOT our enemies and Saddam was doing a good job at keeping islamic extremists out of Iraq, and in serving as an effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony... things we have been unable to do as well as he did), and Dubya lost my support, which he had firmly had, at that moment and never got it back.
Click to expand...

"...ended our military incursion..."

So a Peace Treaty was signed and the no fly zones and the sanctions were just an after thought. :palm:
 
In each of the last two years, Congress has cut President Obama’s request for U.S. Foreign Service and U.S. Agency for International Development staffing levels despite repeated analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, indicating that our embassies are critically understaffed.

But even more inexcusable are the repeated and deep cuts made to embassy security and construction. Thousands of our diplomatic personnel are serving overseas in facilities that do not come close to meeting the minimal requirements for security established by the so-called Inman commission’s report on overseas diplomatic security to President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state more than two decades ago.


http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...omats-national-security-and-the-house-budget/
 
Darla said:
I love you too BAC. :loveu:

I didn't support the Libyan Intervention, but that Benghazi thing is a right wing invention. It's two different things to me. I don't argue with you about it because i am with you that friends don't have to agree with each other on everything. It would be boring anyway.
Click to expand...

:hug:
 
maineman said:
nope... five afloat commands... two in the Pacific, one out of Pearl and the other out of Alemeda, and three in the Atlantic, one out of Newport and two out of Norfolk. Several shore tours stateside and overseas. Great life, the Navy... I got to see the whole freakin' world, almost. That's me standing on the top of Cheops, the great pyramid at Giza in 1981. What branch did you serve in?
Click to expand...
Sounds more like vacation!!
Nice safe job, comfy bed!!

I was with 3 para in a recce capacity for 4 years, re enlisted with 1 DWR a few months later.
16 years, many shitholes, no chilling in the ward room for us!!
 
007 said:
Sounds more like vacation!!
Nice safe job, comfy bed!!

I was with 3 para in a recce capacity for 4 years, re enlisted with 1 DWR a few months later.
16 years, many shitholes, no chilling in the ward room for us!!
Click to expand...

guess you picked the wrong service, eh?
 
evince said:
In each of the last two years, Congress has cut President Obama’s request for U.S. Foreign Service and U.S. Agency for International Development staffing levels despite repeated analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, indicating that our embassies are critically understaffed.

But even more inexcusable are the repeated and deep cuts made to embassy security and construction. Thousands of our diplomatic personnel are serving overseas in facilities that do not come close to meeting the minimal requirements for security established by the so-called Inman commission’s report on overseas diplomatic security to President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state more than two decades ago.


http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...omats-national-security-and-the-house-budget/
Click to expand...


http://wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/special-libya-security-coll.jpg

cutting Obama's requests overall doesn't relieve the State department of the responsibility of where to spend the money. When you have known hotspots, those are not the places to make cuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top