Page 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 376

Thread: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

  1. #261
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    1) We have no idea what North Africa, much less Libya, will soon look like
    True, which was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, something that has not produced heaven on earth, but instead trained and continues to train terrorist.

    2) Whatever one thinks about Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not comparable to Libya.
    True. But Iraq especially was even more reckless and full of hubris.

    3. Qaddafi surrendered his biological, chemical, and quite surprisingly advanced nuclear programs after the removal of Saddam; had he not (and he probably would not have, without Saddam’s example), who knows what eight years of further development and deployment would have led to by 2011?
    Not entirely true. We showed you back then that he had started doing this long before Iraq. Only the blind partisan sees it as due to Iraq. I believe even Powell debunked that Iraq was the cause.

    4) Qaddafi was a monster in rehab who by 2011 posed little strategic threat to the U.S. or its neighbors —
    Not important. We didn't just decide to invade, as was done with Iraq. Qaddafi was already in a conflict with his people. it was getting bloody. The UN and NATO decided to intervene. The US worked within those confines, unlike Iraq.

    The Taliban, in contrast, were the hosts of the 9/11 attackers.
    We can start how that might have gone differently, but Afghanistan is not where Bush lost his mind. Iraq was. He'd have fared much better if he had stayed their.

    Worries about Saddam were expressed in the 20-something writs passed by both houses of Congress in October 2002, after an earlier regime-change resolution passed in the Clinton era. There is no comparable legislation regarding Libya.
    A bit of a misrepresentation. Much of the concerns were declared dealt with after Clinton's bombings. Your side always leaves that out. And not of that talked called for invading. It is not the natural conclusion that concerns equal invasion.

    5) As far as authorization goes, it too is problematic: True, we got U.N. approval for Libya, unlike Iraq, but only to conduct a no-fly-zone and offer humanitarian assistance. Almost immediately we exceeded that —
    With NATO, still far more than with Iraq, which is why there wasn't the UN uproar.
    6) Friedman is right in saying that Republican leaders have a hard time admitting Obama’s anti-terrorism successes. But why is that? Perhaps because Obama was once a fierce critic of nearly all the Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — the Patriot Act, tribunals, renditions, preventive detention, Guantamo, Iraq — at a critical time when such political opposition almost ended them altogether, on the premise they were either amoral or ineffectual or both. But mirabile dictu, President Obama adopted or vastly expanded almost all of them,
    As well we all should have opposed. And Most of us still do. The hypocrisy is on your side in changing position.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #262
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    I think I see a pattern here, bear with me in this...


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    True, which was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, something that has not produced heaven on earth, but instead trained and continues to train terrorist.
    Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.

    True. But Iraq especially was even more reckless and full of hubris.
    Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.

    Not entirely true. We showed you back then that he had started doing this long before Iraq. Only the blind partisan sees it as due to Iraq. I believe even Powell debunked that Iraq was the cause.
    Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...

    Not important. We didn't just decide to invade, as was done with Iraq. Qaddafi was already in a conflict with his people. it was getting bloody. The UN and NATO decided to intervene. The US worked within those confines, unlike Iraq.
    "Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.

    We can start how that might have gone differently, but Afghanistan is not where Bush lost his mind. Iraq was. He'd have fared much better if he had stayed their.
    He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.

    A bit of a misrepresentation. Much of the concerns were declared dealt with after Clinton's bombings. Your side always leaves that out. And not of that talked called for invading. It is not the natural conclusion that concerns equal invasion.
    What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?

    With NATO, still far more than with Iraq, which is why there wasn't the UN uproar.
    NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.

    As well we all should have opposed. And Most of us still do. The hypocrisy is on your side in changing position.
    Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #263
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think I see a pattern here, bear with me in this...




    Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.



    Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.



    Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...



    "Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.



    He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.



    What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?



    NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.



    Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....
    Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.

  4. #264
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    [QUOTE=j-mac;1062893740]
    Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.
    The lesson lost on many was that this was not like WWII at all.


    Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.
    It matters on what he is missing.


    Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...
    No, just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it. You were shown timelines, as well as Powell's testemoney. It wasn't possible that Iraq was the cause.


    "Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.
    The point you're missing is this wasn't about threat. Though an unstable Libya is a bit of a threat concern. It was about the raging civil war.

    He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.
    Nice try, but Afgabistan was falling apart long before Obama.
    What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?
    Again you miss the point. You can argue their words support you when they follow those words up with other words that say it's done.


    NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.
    Again, not in the same way.

    Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....
    If we could ever find a completely objective judge, you might find you fair worse than you think.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #265
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.
    Some on the right don't understand reasoning and mistake their lack of thought as being a sign they are right.



    See how easy that was.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #266
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Victor is a poor source
    That's incredible, but very leftist. Blame the source rather than the facts.

    And Boo Radley actually believes that Boo Radley is a credible source?

    The leftist world has spun completely out of control!!

  7. #267
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That's incredible, but very leftist. Blame the source rather than the facts.

    And Boo Radley actually believes that Boo Radley is a credible source?

    The leftist world has spun completely out of control!!

    Didn't blame the source. But why do you guys think idiots should be called what they are? I certainly recognize liberal dumbass ****. Why can't you see the reverse?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #268
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.
    True indeed. But then only an equal partisan would say that that only happens on one side.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #269
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    [QUOTE=Boo Radley;1062894223]
    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post


    The lesson lost on many was that this was not like WWII at all.




    It matters on what he is missing.




    No, just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it. You were shown timelines, as well as Powell's testemoney. It wasn't possible that Iraq was the cause.




    The point you're missing is this wasn't about threat. Though an unstable Libya is a bit of a threat concern. It was about the raging civil war.



    Nice try, but Afgabistan was falling apart long before Obama.


    Again you miss the point. You can argue their words support you when they follow those words up with other words that say it's done.




    Again, not in the same way.



    If we could ever find a completely objective judge, you might find you fair worse than you think.
    Unbelievable amount of arrogance displayed here by you Joe...I have little interest in rehashing anymore of this with you, you just want your own point of view parotted back to you.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #270
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,068
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    I haven't ignored the differences between Iraq and Libya. I just consider the similarities to be paramount. That once again the US attacked a country that had not threatened or harmed us, at all. When is that **** going to stop?
    Wait a minute, wait a minute. Qaddafi sponsored the bombing over Lockerbie in which many Americans died. Libya attacked us and just because there was a delayed response doesn't change that fact. Why do the deaths of Americans mean nothing to you?
    Last edited by reinoe; 02-08-14 at 08:00 PM.
    Trump Attacked A Syrian Airfield. Trump will be a one-term president.

Page 27 of 38 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •