Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 376

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

  1. #291
    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
    Do you have the numbers available?
    Oh hell, numbers have been posted for better than a decade now. how many times before you see and recognize them?

    Short kived? How long did they use that excuse and when did they realize what really happened? Any idea?
    Frankly not very long. Do you need a timeline provided, or are you capable of looking it up?

    Do you have the 'facts' regarding the actual dates?
    Just as everyone else does. All you have to is look.

    Seriously now. You really have no idea what was going on concerning Benghazi or the lies or the aftermath, right? That is the only possible explanation of why you are claiming 'facts' without actually pointing them out. Instead you use non specific terms entirely, and falsely, unrelated to any 'facts' whatsoever.
    I understand both what happened and how your side exaggerates it.

    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. #292
    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
    It was a lie of political convenience, and much like the new push to delay further implementation of the ACA until AFTER 2016, absolutely and stunningly transparent. And its not going away, even if some would like to think so.
    That is subjective and demonstrates how you color everything. And for all intents and purposes, it has already gone away. The mindless fanatics who cling to it matter far less 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.

  3. #293
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Who do we think of when we think of strong American leaders? FDR? Truman? Eisenhower? Reagan? Party affiliation is often less important than the competence of the leader and the ability to communicate with the American people in a straightforward manner. Being able to work with the Senate and Congress is also essential.

    Every now and then another nation becomes a power competitor with the US, such as China is now. At an earlier time it was Russia, or Japan. And each time this happens it's suggested that America should adopt some of their habits. I never did agree with any of that. Americans, if they continue to support freedom, the free market, and free enterprise. will always excel. If they adopt the habits of other countries they will falter. It is the freest markets, which utilize the power of the people, which do best.

    Maybe the idea has some merit but its implementation has not been carried out well. When going to war winning is everything while going for the hearts and minds is a fool's mission. Someone once said that if you grab them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow, and I agree with this idea.



    The military can be used offensively but it has come to be used politically, not to actually win wars. Many lives have been lost and billions of dollars spent and all for nothing, simply because politics trumped the idea of victory. As well there are those who will support any malevolent movement or dictator who is working against a free peoples interest, and their power should never be underestimated.

    These are just a few off the cuff thoughts and I'd like to hear your opinion, for or against.
    Afghanistan/Libya and to an extent Iraq were civil wars - Iraq less so, but our fracturing of Saddam rule allowed the sectarian divide to bubble up.
    SO the first lesson has to be to stay out of foreign civil war.
    we tried to pick sides, and the sides have to fight it out for themselves -it's stupid to tie us prestige/security to these nations.

    what is the mission in war? is it conquering the land -then yes go all out, like WWII, but if it's pacification, then you do need to win hearts and minds.
    kina hard to win hearts and minds with errant airstrikes and drone strikes.

    we had to hit the terrorist in AfPak, but we didn't have to have huge land forces.
    In Libya, we should have had though "OK if we take out Qaddafi whom is going to fill the void?"
    Qaddafi himself warned us, how in the hell we think Libya was going to form a stable self government is beyond reason.

    As to China, the point was to do business to advance our interests, without getting bogged down in what kind of government we are doing business with - so called soft power advances our prosperity and influence without war

  4. #294
    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
    Oh hell, numbers have been posted for better than a decade now. how many times before you see and recognize them?
    So no numbers, huh? Just your word.



    Frankly not very long. Do you need a timeline provided, or are you capable of looking it up?
    You are making the claim so you should use the available numbers to support your claim.
    Just as everyone else does. All you have to is look.
    All you have to do is provide evidence when you make your silly claims.

    I understand both what happened and how your side exaggerates it.
    I don't believe you understand at all. if you did you'd supply evidence. Facts don't care which political 'side' anyone is on. Supply hard facts or don't make any foolish claims. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand.

  5. #295
    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 annata View Post
    Afghanistan/Libya and to an extent Iraq were civil wars - Iraq less so, but our fracturing of Saddam rule allowed the sectarian divide to bubble up.
    The first thing to do is determine who the enemy really is. Was it Saddam in Iraq? If that is the case why is there still violence there now that Saddam and the troops have been removed? The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suspect a large part of the problem is a reluctance to actually name the enemy and, in the war, designated borders are of less concern than traditional wars. In fact traditional wars are no longer feasible in the modern age. In fact in this ongoing 'hearts and minds' war the Muslim terrorists seem to be faring better than Americans.
    SO the first lesson has to be to stay out of foreign civil war.
    No, because it depends on the war and it's likelihood of spreading. That idea has been around for a long while, and often leads to even bigger wars.
    we tried to pick sides, and the sides have to fight it out for themselves -it's stupid to tie us prestige/security to these nations.
    Which 'sides' are you referring too and whose 'side' are we on?

    what is the mission in war? is it conquering the land -then yes go all out, like WWII, but if it's pacification, then you do need to win hearts and minds.
    At one time armies fought each other in that manner and 'hearts and minds' were of no concern whatsoever. But the Communists realized that propaganda can work wonders by undermining the opposition by other means. Although they couldn't run an economy they were masters in the art of convincing people that their freedoms sucked and that totalitarianism was really the way to go. Other groups, particularly militant Muslims, certainly recognized this strategy. We need only look at Iraq where the Coalition, through military means, won areas that now have the Al Qaeda flag flying above them. That's because AQ didn't bother with the hearts and minds argument at all. That is only a recent, and rather juvenile, strategy.
    kina hard to win hearts and minds with errant airstrikes and drone strikes.
    Exactly. terrorists can shrug these poff easily while the claim can also be made that we are genuinely fighting terrorism.

    we had to hit the terrorist in AfPak, but we didn't have to have huge land forces.
    Right. The technology is there to just drop a couple and then after a day or two ask if they want more. Peace can come quickly if a genuine and serious response is made. WWII proved that. WWI proved the opposite.
    In Libya, we should have had though "OK if we take out Qaddafi whom is going to fill the void?"
    Right!
    Qaddafi himself warned us, how in the hell we think Libya was going to form a stable self government is beyond reason.
    I don't know whose advice was followed instead. The US was 'leading from the rear' so someone in the Obama administration should know.
    As to China, the point was to do business to advance our interests, without getting bogged down in what kind of government we are doing business with - so called soft power advances our prosperity and influence without war
    Most every democracy uses soft power. I read that opinion piece you submitted but it could have been written decades ago.

  6. #296
    Guru
    annata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    beneath the bodi tree
    Last Seen
    02-16-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    The first thing to do is determine who the enemy really is. Was it Saddam in Iraq? If that is the case why is there still violence there now that Saddam and the troops have been removed? The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suspect a large part of the problem is a reluctance to actually name the enemy and, in the war, designated borders are of less concern than traditional wars. In fact traditional wars are no longer feasible in the modern age. In fact in this ongoing 'hearts and minds' war the Muslim terrorists seem to be faring better than Americans.
    Iraq was a problem for the region, but also a bulwark under Saddam to check Iran. Now Iraq is a virtual colony of Iran. We stepped in and changed a vey big dynamic
    (i.e.)Shi'a rule and very close ties as evidenced by al -Sadr's ability to cross the Iraq/Iraw border, and be influential voice of the then new al_Malaki gov't.

    al-Sadr warned that any SOFA agreement signed with the US would put US troops under Iraqi law - we had to leave, no residuals ( and I was for getting out)
    , but when we did leave we left Iraq fractured.
    AQIR became AQIS/AQIL -and came back from Syria battle hardened. Since they are Sunni jihadists they now want to use Anwar and SW Syria to establish their own rogue caliphate.
    This is the same area we used the "Awakening" to COMBAT AQ during our Iraq war!

    Iraq wasn't an enemy state -we sent weapons during the Iraq/Iran war to Iraq. We just messed it up by disbanding the Iraqi army as part of our invasion 'strategy'.
    There was no reason to invade Iraq, and when we did so, we destabilized a dictatorial regime - much like Libya -that had a ton of human rights abuses.
    But all we should do is work on sanctions etc. like we were doing before the invasion. Now Iraq is a mess, and we back to sending weapons to al-Malaki, whom is clinging to power by shutting Sunni's out of his gov't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    No, because it depends on the war and it's likelihood of spreading. That idea has been around for a long while, and often leads to even bigger wars.
    if you look at the recent history of Libya. Iraq, and Afghanistan they are all civil wars. Yemen is coming out of one. In Yemen we use a COUNTERTERRORISM strategy - it's too wide and includes
    "militant and extremists", but at least we are not actively supporting and particular tribes, like we do in Afg. and like we did in Libya (NTC).
    We cannot impose our ideas of which factions to back in foreign lands, anymore then we would have wanted the British in our Civil War.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Which 'sides' are you referring too and whose 'side' are we on?
    we are fighting the Afgan Taliban, and droning the Paki Taliban.
    It's not our war, let them fight it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    At one time armies fought each other in that manner and 'hearts and minds' were of no concern whatsoever. But the Communists realized that propaganda can work wonders by undermining the opposition by other means. Although they couldn't run an economy they were masters in the art of convincing people that their freedoms sucked and that totalitarianism was really the way to go. Other groups, particularly militant Muslims, certainly recognized this strategy. We need only look at Iraq where the Coalition, through military means, won areas that now have the Al Qaeda flag flying above them. That's because AQ didn't bother with the hearts and minds argument at all. That is only a recent, and rather juvenile, strategy.
    I think I answered Iraq for you
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Exactly. terrorists can shrug these poff easily while the claim can also be made that we are genuinely fighting terrorism.

    Right. The technology is there to just drop a couple and then after a day or two ask if they want more. Peace can come quickly if a genuine and serious response is made. WWII proved that. WWI proved the opposite.
    Right!
    I don't know whose advice was followed instead. The US was 'leading from the rear' so someone in the Obama administration should know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Most every democracy uses soft power. I read that opinion piece you submitted but it could have been written decades ago.
    we do, but we rely far too much on hard power.
    That was just a quick article, glad you looked it over, it was the idea of our decline in the use of soft power, in favor of more hard power I was referring to.

  7. #297
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That's not blaming it. That's calling it what it is. I also answered him.



    You, j, conservative, and others use highly questionable sources that no logical person would use. From the American non-Thinker to NRO, that are chronically inaccurate and hyperbolic as well as hyper partisan.
    That's just it, no one cares what you think of the particular source. You too often use this excuse to not address the debate. It's tiring.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #298
    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
    So no numbers, huh? Just your word.
    Do you realize how weak that is? Seriously?

    You are making the claim so you should use the available numbers to support your claim.
    All you have to do is provide evidence when you make your silly claims.
    Not hard:

    Sept. 11: The Attack

    2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time):

    (snip)

    Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

    CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

    (snip)

    Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

    Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’

    Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”

    So, at first there are questions, then on the 18th Obama says it's the tape. Then on 21st Clinton corrects him. That's 3 days. On the 26th, less than 10 days, Obama says it was a terrorist attack. I think that clearly shows it was not a long interval.

    I don't believe you understand at all. if you did you'd supply evidence. Facts don't care which political 'side' anyone is on. Supply hard facts or don't make any foolish claims. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
    As shown above, you clear exaggerate it.

    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.

  9. #299
    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 j-mac View Post
    That's just it, no one cares what you think of the particular source. You too often use this excuse to not address the debate. It's tiring.
    Of course you don't care. If you did, you'd do better. And frankly, some things are so silly that to even give them credence demeans us all. Truthers and birthers fall under that category, as does almost anything from the American non-Thinker. It is also not profitable to debate a source that has proven inaccurate, like NRO. And yes, I have shown that in the past, promptly ignored. Like I said, if you cared about this, you wouldn't use it.

    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.

  10. #300
    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
    Do you realize how weak that is? Seriously?



    Not hard:

    Sept. 11: The Attack

    2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time):

    (snip)

    Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.

    CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

    (snip)

    Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

    Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

    (snip)

    Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’

    Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”

    So, at first there are questions, then on the 18th Obama says it's the tape. Then on 21st Clinton corrects him. That's 3 days. On the 26th, less than 10 days, Obama says it was a terrorist attack. I think that clearly shows it was not a long interval.



    As shown above, you clear exaggerate it.
    So according to your post Clinton said it was a terrorist attack ten days after the terrorist attack. None of what you posted supports your earlier positions at all.

    And do you still believe that terrorists used the video for 'an excuse'? Where is the evidence for that??

Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •