• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Iraq wasn't necessary, so that is a difference in how they handle what isn't necessary. I haven't called Obama's administration benevolent. Just not as bad as Bush's was. There is much I disagree with Obama on. I just won't pretend he has done as poorly as Bush on these things.

But you don't have to pretend.
 
More than Iraq was, and not really just a US effort. No coalition of the willing. But not something I supported.

Not really. Other than it was a democratic president firing the missiles, how was Libya more justified than Iraq?
 
More than Iraq was, and not really just a US effort. No coalition of the willing. But not something I supported.

You know you'd have more credibility if you'd just call Obama out on being wrong on Libya, rather than trying to hold him a little bit higher out of the sewer than Bush, because then your just being a partisan and helping to ensure we get more of the same.
 
Was Lybia necessary?

To realize the Wests long standing goal of "regime change", yes. But if it amounted simply to protection of civilians, things would have went a lot differently. For one, Gaddafi, who had already made significant reforms, unprecedented when compared to the other heavy hands in the region, would have reigned in his military, some of which was attacked heading west (basically a stance of retreat) from the main contesting grounds in east Libya anyway, and many believe that he would have been willing to make at least some concessions to the protestations that were being made. But now then, we'll never know what really could have been, because true to form, the US lined up the navy ships and let the tomahawks fly, while the British and French, US to a lesser degree, flew round the clock sorties, directed at targets sure to bring about "regime change".
 
Wow! So, we should just ignore it, and pretend that everything possible was done right? We should be content that some poor schmuck that made a stupid video years ago was thrown into jail to further a lie? We should be content with our leaders openly lying to our face?

What did the President know? When did he know it? and What did he instruct be done about it? These are questions that EVERY american should want to know.

I never suggested it be ignored. But there is a lot more going on than people just asking questions though. There are accusations being made without evidence. If people don't get the answer they already believe is true (and have no way of knowing it's true) they call people liars. There is an excited focus on the remotest of possibilities here. Did Obama say it was an act or terror or a terrorist attack? WHO GIVES A ****? What possible difference does that actually make? "Oh god he wouldn't call it a terrorist attack for days but others were...he's a liar, he's covering something up!" Really? What is he covering up? People don't know...but it's gotta be something otherwise he would have said "it's a terrorist attack" right? No. Not right. Was there a tremendous amount of disconnect in the messages coming out of the White House? Yes. Did the administration look like bumbling idiots at times over this? Yes. Did it mean they were covering up for terrorists or trying to downplay the event because they thought a terrorist attack might make them look bad? Who can know? The whole GOP led mantra that Obama and Clinton ignored the SEALS cries for backup is just an example of the crap I'm talking about. Or that Obama deliberately ignored repeated requests increased security for the offices in Libya. Presidents don't typically get involved in that level of discussion (as in how many Marines stationed at security posts, how many State Department security specialists, what kinds of weapons are authorized). That is all managed well below his level and he has to trust his people to make the right decisions on those matters. Clearly somebody did not in the case of Benghazi. Clearly there were warning signs. So who exactly ignored them? Are they still employed? Those people, the ones who had a direct role in failing to do their job (in the security strategy of the offices in Libya) should be fired for incompetency.

Being frustrated about how this happened is understandable. Americans are dead and it may have been possible to prevent it. Pointing out that questions haven't been answered sufficiently and that there appears to be a lack of accountability is reasonable. But the extremist response that seems to keep coming up from the more unreasonable side of the crowd is to assess a guilty verdict on Obama...well beyond that which is due his station of President. Ultimately it does rest on his shoulders, vicarious liability right?
 
I don't think so. I believe the differences matter.

The differences only matter when your not talking about presidential culpability. You mustn't forget that during hostilities in Libya, the CIA was operating a facility in Benghazi, (smuggling we call it when it's "unauthorized") delivering arms to the Syrian opposition, in a covert attempt to help facilitate "regime change" in Syria, because overt attempts were sure to fail and ultimately did until recently, and in a limited way.
 
Not really. Other than it was a democratic president firing the missiles, how was Libya more justified than Iraq?

Didn't say it was justified. I said it didn't go as far, and there was more international support. These are real differences.
 
You know you'd have more credibility if you'd just call Obama out on being wrong on Libya, rather than trying to hold him a little bit higher out of the sewer than Bush, because then your just being a partisan and helping to ensure we get more of the same.

If you look at the threads back then you should find me saying he was wrong.
 
The differences only matter when your not talking about presidential culpability. You mustn't forget that during hostilities in Libya, the CIA was operating a facility in Benghazi, (smuggling we call it when it's "unauthorized") delivering arms to the Syrian opposition, in a covert attempt to help facilitate "regime change" in Syria, because overt attempts were sure to fail and ultimately did until recently, and in a limited way.
Yes, and such covert stuff has a long history ore dating both Bush and Obama.

And they were all wrong as far as I can see. But that's another issue and don't make any of them the same.
 
Didn't say it was justified. I said it didn't go as far, and there was more international support. These are real differences.

There was as much or more international support for Iraq then Libya. Do we have to bring out all the numbers, AGAIN!?!? And no it didn't go as far, but again Boo, your partisan eyes are ignoring the fact that it didn't go as far because it didn't need to go as far to meet US objectives, not because we have a more benevolent White House.
 
If you look at the threads back then you should find me saying he was wrong.

I understand that, you've said it in this thread, albeit with the caveat that he wasn't as wrong as Bush, leave that off and it's perfect.
 
Yes, and such covert stuff has a long history ore dating both Bush and Obama.

And they were all wrong as far as I can see. But that's another issue and don't make any of them the same.

White House covert activities go back to at least the Jefferson administration. Because two wrongs equal a right, this continues.
 
You mustn't forget that during hostilities in Libya, the CIA was operating a facility in Benghazi, (smuggling we call it when it's "unauthorized") delivering arms to the Syrian opposition, in a covert attempt to help facilitate "regime change" in Syria,

So what? One cannot attack the operations of other countries in the US just because one does not personally agree with them. Are you justifying terrorism via anarchy and fantasy morality?
 
Boo, your partisan eyes are ignoring the fact that it didn't go as far because it didn't need to go as far to meet US objectives, not because we have a more benevolent White House.


Of course, because the US is the Great Satan!
 
Eager? No, I think that is over exaggeration on its face. Remember, Bush went to the UN countless times, and got at least 3 resolutions leading up to the conflict threatening Saddam. All of which were mocked by actions of misdirection, and misleading UN inspectors.

Also, remember that most of our wars were entered into by demo's, this one is unusual in the scheme of war history in America. But with that said, has anyone ever reported the signature of the chem weapons used in Syria? See, it's just my opinion, but I think that some of those were Iraqi, and this whole "peace" process there is to cover that up.

I said the White House, j-mac! GWB in particular, was the kind of guy that hated the formalities and time of going through systems, securing authorizations and listening to advice. After his election, but before he was sworn in, he made the statement that if this was a dictatorship, his job would be a lot easier!! He made the statement a time or two after he was president, too. He just had it in his head that he knew what was right and if he could act unilaterally (like the dictators he criticized, and wanted to take out), he could get things done. If only the lawyers, the democrats, the UN, international law, the god damn constitution, whatever stood in his way, would get beside him, or get behind him, he could call, "mission accomplished" more often and much faster.
 
I said the White House, j-mac! GWB in particular, was the kind of guy that hated the formalities and time of going through systems, securing authorizations and listening to advice. After his election, but before he was sworn in, he made the statement that if this was a dictatorship, his job would be a lot easier!! He made the statement a time or two after he was president, too. He just had it in his head that he knew what was right and if he could act unilaterally (like the dictators he criticized, and wanted to take out), he could get things done. If only the lawyers, the democrats, the UN, international law, the god damn constitution, whatever stood in his way, would get beside him, or get behind him, he could call, "mission accomplished" more often and much faster.

If Bush's goals were to create a dictatorship I really have to question his decision to step down after 8 years. :roll:
 
If Bush's goals were to create a dictatorship I really have to question his decision to step down after 8 years. :roll:

I never said he had the "goal of creating a dictatorship". But do you deny he mused that such would disencumber him from getting his agenda through. Or that he was frustrated with his advisors when they pointed to things like our constitution, IL or the opposition party?
 
Obama was informed this was a terrorist attack.

Obama was briefed on the Benghazi terrorist attack minutes after the assault began. The new evidence, Rosen said, raises questions about why the Obama administration was allowed to present a false narrative about a video for two weeks.

Gen. Carter Ham, then head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told a House panel last year in classified testimony that he broke the news of the attack to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Report says Obama knew Benghazi was a terror attack, lied about video - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

I can't c/p any more because of fair use. There is some evidence Mike Morrel (CIA) massaged the info away It is all very obscured, and takes diligence to wade thru it all.

What difference does it make at this point?" the answer IS if Bengazi wouldn't have happened, we'd be left with the false narrative the WH was pushing that the "video did it"

Read thru the Senate Intelligence committee report, there isn't a smoking gun, but it's clear the data was manipulated
Panetta told the Senate last February it was him who informed Obama about the attack.
 
There was as much or more international support for Iraq then Libya. Do we have to bring out all the numbers, AGAIN!?!? And no it didn't go as far, but again Boo, your partisan eyes are ignoring the fact that it didn't go as far because it didn't need to go as far to meet US objectives, not because we have a more benevolent White House.

A bribed coalition of the willing doesn't equal more support, no. It us more likely you're partisan eyes are ignoring differences.
 
I understand that, you've said it in this thread, albeit with the caveat that he wasn't as wrong as Bush, leave that off and it's perfect.

But it isn't equal. There are real and important differences. How severe something is matters in terms of response. You react according appropriately according to the severity of the act. Had Bush not occupied, the anger would have died down as it has with Obama. Occupation assured continued and growing anger. It's appropriate to recognize this.
 
White House covert activities go back to at least the Jefferson administration. Because two wrongs equal a right, this continues.

I didn't say it made it right, only expected. I also think pointing to changes or growth in excesses, and new areas of overreach would be more fruitful. Otherwise we're left with they are all evil and suck. At some point we have to say this one went beyond the others, and this one was in norm. With those in the norm, we focus on changing the authority and not saying the person is bad. It's the system that allows it.
 
I never said he had the "goal of creating a dictatorship". But do you deny he mused that such would disencumber him from getting his agenda through. Or that he was frustrated with his advisors when they pointed to things like our constitution, IL or the opposition party?

It's not a great leap to conclude that the presidency would be much more powerful without Congress. Presidents have joked about this often when pressed for why they haven't done more. Only Nixon and Obama have shown an actual willingness to do something about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom