Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Boo Radley · Jan 23, 2014

US Conservative said:
Politically convenient, especially from the guy recently gunning for syria-wouldnt you say?

I'm saying, he said what he do, stated it clearly, and did just what he said he do.

US Conservative · Jan 23, 2014

Boo Radley said:
He asked to allow him to decide.

Thats not how it works. Here's where you link to specific data backing your claim. No, "listen to the speeches" does not count.

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

disneydude said:
and the spineless democrats that voted for it are responsible as well. It doesn't change the fact that the lies and manipulation came from the top. And it doesn't eliminate the hypocrisy from the far right-wingers who are "outraged" at four deaths in Benghazi while not giving a damn about the thousands who died as a result of Iraq.

Apples and oranges....This is only deflection to cover for Obama's mess, by blaming or comparing the situation to anything Bush...It really is childish. Obama owns Libya from top to bottom, and Hillary is going to wear this anvil around her neck regardless of what you think of it...We are going to make damned sure of that.

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

Boo Radley said:
I'm saying, he said what he do, stated it clearly, and did just what he said he do.

What at this point does it matter what Bush did? One thing is crystal clear Obama threw away any successes there by not negotiating a SOFA agreement....Obama made the sacrifice of those brave troops that came home, and those that died there worthless....Just goes to show how little liberals value American servicemen's lives.

disneydude · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
Apples and oranges....This is only deflection to cover for Obama's mess, by blaming or comparing the situation to anything Bush...It really is childish. Obama owns Libya from top to bottom, and Hillary is going to wear this anvil around her neck regardless of what you think of it...We are going to make damned sure of that.

ROTFL....are you serious? You guys have been trying this for over a year and it hasn't succeeded the first 5739 times....why do you think it will succeed the 5740th time? Oh...wiat...that is the Republican model - Keep trying the same failed ideas and expect different results. Gotcha ya.

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

disneydude said:
ROTFL....are you serious? You guys have been trying this for over a year and it hasn't succeeded the first 5739 times....why do you think it will succeed the 5740th time? Oh...wiat...that is the Republican model - Keep trying the same failed ideas and expect different results. Gotcha ya.

Well, the true test of that comes this November, and in 2016 doesn't it...So, you'll forgive me if I don't automatically just take your word for it, right?

Fenton · Jan 24, 2014

Boo Radley said:
You might want to read Kerry's speech before he voted. He explains pretty well than Saddam wasn't the kind of threat that required invasion, but wanted Bush to have some teeth to encourage compliance. Still, Kerry noted Bush promised not to go in unilaterally and hope Bush would hold up his end, and that if Bush didn't, he'd oppose Bush. That's way reading what is actually said and argued is important.

Huh ? It's eye opening to see someone who's so married to a corrupted ideology that he's willing to sell out any semblance of integrity.

But back to Kerry, he was known for double speak like that, he voted AGAINST it before he voted FOR it...

Maybe you can desperately attempt to justify down THESE Democrat quotes, OR just be honest and admit the whole " Bush lied people died " false narrative was just one in a million of the low life disingenuous tactics Democrats like to employ.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

disneydude · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
Well, the true test of that comes this November, and in 2016 doesn't it...So, you'll forgive me if I don't automatically just take your word for it, right?

Why don't you guys ever learn. You keep trying the same failed ideas and expect different results everytime. You think at some point you guys would come up with a new playbook.

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

disneydude said:
Why don't you guys ever learn. You keep trying the same failed ideas and expect different results everytime. You think at some point you guys would come up with a new playbook.

Liberals IMHO, are generally morons, driven by emotion, and dumb arguments like this....To listen to you disney, you'd think that republicans should do what demo's tell them to do...Who in their right mind thinks that developing strategy according to what your enemies tell you is a smart plan?

disneydude · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
Liberals IMHO, are generally morons, driven by emotion, and dumb arguments like this....To listen to you disney, you'd think that republicans should do what demo's tell them to do...Who in their right mind thinks that developing strategy according to what your enemies tell you is a smart plan?

See THAT is exactly what is wrong with the GOP today. Democrats are now the "Enemy". There was a time when parties just had different ideologies, but could work together. The GOP has made clear that they have no plan to work with their "enemy".

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

disneydude said:
See THAT is exactly what is wrong with the GOP today. Democrats are now the "Enemy". There was a time when parties just had different ideologies, but could work together. The GOP has made clear that they have no plan to work with their "enemy".

We didn't start this war, or aid in its divisiveness. We in the GOP tried it your (Liberals) way, and look where it got us, and your answer is to keep saying that we need to do as you think we should...When liberals say "work with us" they really mean 'do it our way'....Nope, no longer pal, we see you.

Boo Radley · Jan 24, 2014

US Conservative said:
Thats not how it works. Here's where you link to specific data backing your claim. No, "listen to the speeches" does not count.

Sure it counts. He gave a speech. Look it up and read it.

Boo Radley · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
What at this point does it matter what Bush did? One thing is crystal clear Obama threw away any successes there by not negotiating a SOFA agreement....Obama made the sacrifice of those brave troops that came home, and those that died there worthless....Just goes to show how little liberals value American servicemen's lives.

It maters in the context of the conversation we're having.

And no, Obama, factually, did not make any decision to sacrifice anyone. That is the over the top exaggeration too common in these discussions.

Boo Radley · Jan 24, 2014

Fenton said:
Huh ? It's eye opening to see someone who's so married to a corrupted ideology that he's willing to sell out any semblance of integrity.

But back to Kerry, he was known for double speak like that, he voted AGAINST it before he voted FOR it...

Maybe you can desperately attempt to justify down THESE Democrat quotes, OR just be honest and admit the whole " Bush lied people died " false narrative was just one in a million of the low life disingenuous tactics Democrats like to employ.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

What's a amazing is how tight you guys hang on to out of context quoting. I won't link the Snoopes Explanation concerning these quotes and why they are misleading, as it has been too many times, but you will never convince anyone who isn't a diehard believer like yourself with such poor evidence. You must do better. This has already been addressed too, too many times.

disneydude · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
We didn't start this war, or aid in its divisiveness. We in the GOP tried it your (Liberals) way, and look where it got us, and your answer is to keep saying that we need to do as you think we should...When liberals say "work with us" they really mean 'do it our way'....Nope, no longer pal, we see you.

What are you talking about?

j-mac · Jan 24, 2014

Boo Radley said:
It maters in the context of the conversation we're having.

And no, Obama, factually, did not make any decision to sacrifice anyone. That is the over the top exaggeration too common in these discussions.

He sure didn't make any decision to save them now did he?....So, It is simple, he sacrificed them.

Boo Radley · Jan 24, 2014

j-mac said:
He sure didn't make any decision to save them now did he?....So, It is simple, he sacrificed them.

Again, an exaggeration, wild partisan hyperbole.

US Conservative · Jan 24, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Sure it counts. He gave a speech. Look it up and read it.

Nice try but no dice.

Grant · Jan 25, 2014

humbolt said:
There have been arguments to the effect that Obama didn't know, couldn't have known, and was thus not accountable for the result. Perhaps not here - I haven't read all the threads associated with this event here, and I don't intend to. The point is that if Obama is not responsible, and Wiseone seems to be making that point in post #4, then who in the hell is? I want a name of the Cabinet level person who made the policy decision regarding Benghazi because they are they only ones with the power to do that beside the president himself. So if it's not Obama...The effort has been to spread the responsibility so thin and so far as to not hold anyone accountable for anything, and claim is was a systemic failure. That's unacceptable.

Hillary Clinton claimed responsibility in order, it seems, to take some sort of high road. But neither she nor anyone else in the Obama Administration apparently feels that there should be any consequences of not responding to the warnings, not going to the aid of those under attack, and then trying to cover it up with some phoney story about a Youtube video.

That people would actually buy into this nonsense strongly suggests that both Clinton and Obama understand how foolishly naive their supporters must be.

humbolt · Jan 25, 2014

Grant said:
Hillary Clinton claimed responsibility in order, it seems, to take some sort of high road. But neither she nor anyone else in the Obama Administration apparently feels that there should be any consequences of not responding to the warnings, not going to the aid of those under attack, and then trying to cover it up with some phoney story about a Youtube video.

That people would actually buy into this nonsense strongly suggests that both Clinton and Obama understand how foolishly naive their supporters must be.

All sadly true. Blame without consequences is not blame at all now. It's a badge of honor.

ReformCollege · Jan 25, 2014

annata said:
FOX Report
mentioned tonight was the absurd "blame the building" scenario as Krauthammer put it.

"State Dept." but absolutely no-one is mentioned. Like there is this entity that runs itself, with absolutely no-one in charge or even there.

Shape-shifting blameless unaccountable ghosts at Foggy Bottom.

Feinstein even came out yestersay and specifically defended Hillary, who wasn't even mentioned..

(asides from the attack was caused by the video, which is patently false - known in the first few minutes it WAS a terror attack)

The new senate report also claims that bears indeed do **** in the woods.

Boo Radley · Jan 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Nice try but no dice.

If you want to know, you'll look. I don't believe you want to know.

Grant · Jan 26, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Again, an exaggeration, wild partisan hyperbole.

The facts speak for themselves.

US Conservative · Jan 26, 2014

Boo Radley said:
If you want to know, you'll look. I don't believe you want to know.

Your entire premise that the president asked for a vote from congress to allow HIM to make all the decisions is absurd. If you think thats what happened crack open a book and GET reading.

Boo Radley · Jan 26, 2014

Grant said:
The facts speak for themselves.

Interpretations are not equal to facts. Sorry.