• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gates: Some Benghazi critics have "cartoonish" view of military capability

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stevens was not in an Embassy. He was in a CIA house.Stevens was the kind of man who wanted to be with people. He knew how dangerous it was. It was a 3 house compound.

he was sent the by the state department in perpetration for a visit by H. Clinton
 
It was in 1968. How about you?

1971 11B with the scars to show for it. You 11B? You got tossed into a react for an ambushed unit you had no contact with and only a very sketchy outline of what was happening with how many badguys? Do tell...

Now if you have been paying attention to more than right wing talking points it isn't the civilian in charge of the Pentagon who with holds troops from 'dangerous' situations even with soldiers wounded and under fire. If you studied the Hot Mess of the Mogadishu raid in '93 you will see where the senior man in Somalia, a general, refused to send the medivacs in for badly wounded troops and those men died overnight. You'd also know of Gordon and Shughart and their insertion to protect CW Durant in his downed Black Hawk. While it was bravery beyond measure, it didn't save Durant and the deaths didn't alter the subsequent events.

As I look at this I'd say there is a lot more to this than a 'simple' terrorist attack. The American security forces complained there would be an attack, there was tips there would be an attack, the compound was known to be a security risk, there are now rumors of the CIA using this compound to conduct missions, the night was the anniversary of 9-11, the bulk of the security team (possible operatives rather than true guards) was a klick away at the annex and not the consulate. And why does the Ambassador go to the far less secure Consulate on 9-11?

It was a failure of security across the board, from the poorly constructed buildings to the 'security' team itself.

If it turns out the terrorists were hitting the Consulate not for the Ambassador but for the 'information' officer and his operation hunting shoulder launched missiles then the worm turns in a whole new direction. It might explain the reluctance to call the attack an organized assault if the CIA was the primary target.
 
1971 11B with the scars to show for it. You 11B? You got tossed into a react for an ambushed unit you had no contact with and only a very sketchy outline of what was happening with how many badguys? Do tell...

Now if you have been paying attention to more than right wing talking points it isn't the civilian in charge of the Pentagon who with holds troops from 'dangerous' situations even with soldiers wounded and under fire. If you studied the Hot Mess of the Mogadishu raid in '93 you will see where the senior man in Somalia, a general, refused to send the medivacs in for badly wounded troops and those men died overnight. You'd also know of Gordon and Shughart and their insertion to protect CW Durant in his downed Black Hawk. While it was bravery beyond measure, it didn't save Durant and the deaths didn't alter the subsequent events.

As I look at this I'd say there is a lot more to this than a 'simple' terrorist attack. The American security forces complained there would be an attack, there was tips there would be an attack, the compound was known to be a security risk, there are now rumors of the CIA using this compound to conduct missions, the night was the anniversary of 9-11, the bulk of the security team (possible operatives rather than true guards) was a klick away at the annex and not the consulate. And why does the Ambassador go to the far less secure Consulate on 9-11?

It was a failure of security across the board, from the poorly constructed buildings to the 'security' team itself.

If it turns out the terrorists were hitting the Consulate not for the Ambassador but for the 'information' officer and his operation hunting shoulder launched missiles then the worm turns in a whole new direction. It might explain the reluctance to call the attack an organized assault if the CIA was the primary target.

Right wing talking points? I'm just stating an opinion. It is unconscionable that the government did nothing. My words. Not someone else's.
 
Right wing talking points? I'm just stating an opinion. It is unconscionable that the government did nothing. My words. Not someone else's.

yes you are just stating an opinion, one the facts don't support. One that ignores what it wants to to try and muddy Hillary for 2016.

And funny how your opinion mimics the right wing talking points. :roll:
 
Other than the obvious quote from a movie, what other part of my statement makes you think it was derived from movies? The only time I remember anyone actually referring to MacArthur as being a self-aggrandizing idiot has been some veterans that served under him. Possible it might have been said during an episode of MASH, but don't remember such. Also, I don't know of any place, other than my post above that ever compared the leadership of Custer to MacArthur. Neither is a subject during leadership schools other than historical references, and since I was AF, Custer doesn't come up at all. Patton on leadership, absolutely, MacArthur, not for enlisted, maybe the officers talk about him /shrug.

This,

Not to mention that Custer was a self-aggrandizing MacArthur type who idiotically underestimated his enemy even though he did have intelligence and advice that should have let him know more than he did.

is how Custer is routinely portrayed in the picture shows, and it's a long way from the truth.
 
This,



is how Custer is routinely portrayed in the picture shows, and it's a long way from the truth.

I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't really watched much about Custer or that even peripherally dealt with Custer.
 
I'll have to take your word for that. I haven't really watched much about Custer or that even peripherally dealt with Custer.

Well, the popular portryal of Custer and The Battle of Little Bighorn has been PC'ed to death, in the picture show. We've been lead to believe that the 7th Cavalry was totally wiped out, in just a few hours, at Little Bighorn, which is erroneous. Granted, the 7th Cavalry took 50+% casualties, it wasn't wiped out to the man, nor did the battle last just a few hours, it lasted for nearly two days. The day after Custer's detachment was wiped out, the indians renewed the attack against Benteen's and Reno's detachments, that were dug in 3 MILES from Custer's last position.

Also, when you take into consideration Custer's own words, the question stand as to whether, or not Custer even wanted to get into a fight rather than seeking a peaceful resolution:

"Indians contemplating a battle, either offensive or defensive, are always anxious to have their women and children removed from all danger…For this reason I decided to locate our [military] camp as close as convenient to [Chief Black Kettle's Cheyenne] village, knowing that the close proximity of their women and children, and their necessary exposure in case of conflict, would operate as a powerful argument in favor of peace, when the question of peace or war came to be discussed."

Custer, George Armstrong, My Life on the Plains : Or, Personal Experiences with Indians. New York: Sheldon and Company (1874). p. 220

Politically correct history hasn't been at all fair to Custer, but that comes as no surprise.
 
yes you are just stating an opinion, one the facts don't support. One that ignores what it wants to to try and muddy Hillary for 2016.

And funny how your opinion mimics the right wing talking points. :roll:

How do facts support an opinion? You are reading a lot into the few words of a non partisan.
 
How do facts support an opinion? You are reading a lot into the few words of a non partisan.

So you are admitting you have NOTHING to base your opinion on.... just pitching a right wing rant that seems to be a carbon copy of the 'conservative' politicians and talk radio comments. Gates has a leadership/service record that is head and shoulders above 99% of his critics.

A non partisan who is in lock step with the right wing rants....

Well seeing how you are a Libertarian I guess that makes sense.
 
So you are admitting you have NOTHING to base your opinion on.... just pitching a right wing rant that seems to be a carbon copy of the 'conservative' politicians and talk radio comments. Gates has a leadership/service record that is head and shoulders above 99% of his critics.

A non partisan who is in lock step with the right wing rants....

Well seeing how you are a Libertarian I guess that makes sense.

My opinion is based on the fact that a U.S. facility was under attack and the government did nothing. You have a lot of anger. You really should get that under control.
 
My opinion is based on the fact that a U.S. facility was under attack and the government did nothing. You have a lot of anger. You really should get that under control.

It's a bit ironic to hear a libertarian call for government action. Maybe the embassy should have used the market.
 
Right wing talking points? I'm just stating an opinion. It is unconscionable that the government did nothing. My words. Not someone else's.

They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.
 
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.

Holy crap. Talk about trying to revive an old thread.
 
I politically despise Hillary Clinton.

But I sure wish both parties cared as much about all the other Americans who died in the Middle East serving their country as those three/four that died in Benghazi that night.


It frankly makes me rather sick that Reps freak out over these four deaths but NEVER seem to spend a fraction of the effort on studying whether the thousands of other brave Americans who died over there could have been saved.

Why?

Because they were in charge when the latter died but were not when the former did.

Nothing but political bull ****.
 
Last edited:
Bolded statement: If what I recall is true, that the attack transpired over four or five hours, I find his statement not only unbelievable, but a lie.

If we don't have a "ready force" standing by in the Middle East? Where they hell do we have a ready force?

you are calling him a liar? Really you are going with that? Remember he wasn't in charge then. Please regale us with you deep knowledge of US military operations and capability.....

LOL
 
There's no but. Hillary supported the invasion of Iraq.

That is not the point...her party was not in power when Iraq was invaded.

If you instigate the madness, it is YOUR responsibility...period.

GWB invaded Iraq...not the Dems. Therefore it is HIS responsibility until he left office. I will not debate this as there is nothing to debate.

Whereas the Dems are responsible for the Libya debacle...even though most Reps agreed with it.
 
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.

Moderator's Warning:
Please do not necro dead threads.

Closing.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Please don't necro old (2013!) threads.
 
They forget the Ambassador was warned of the danger, but he went any way. That is the kind of man he was. Danger did not stop him.

MTG-ThreadNecromancer_3198.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom