• 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!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

Grant said:
There have been dozens of threads devoted to this topic over the years. Now we have a new topic.
Click to expand...
We do have a new committee, this time a "special" one according Boehner.
As comparede to the "not-so-special" ones of ISSA, Camp and McKeon.
The same McKeon who disses I$$A and the General.

The leftists are deliberately trying to destroy threads about Benghazi by diverting back to George Bush, just as Barry Obama has done..
Click to expand...
The hyper-rightists have forgotten ACA, due to polling on Medicaid Extension.
Now they're back to fund-raising off of our murdered personnel .
 
Blue_State said:
I really don't want to make this about the Barracks, but you are still misrepresenting. In your quotes, Reagan isn't denying them what they need. They were in the process of addressing it, just not fast enough by your quote.
Click to expand...
Excuses for the GOP Presidents and deliberate prejudices(s) against the DEMs.

Also, the gate was armed. The only Marine to chamber a round was in the guard house.
Click to expand...
Were our four murdered personnel unarmed?
Why does GOP Chair Buck McKeon of Armed Services say there is nothing new here?
The difference is, NOTHING was done about Benghazi.
Click to expand...
As anti-Obamanists ignore the bi-partisan Senate committee.
 
NIMBY said:
Excuses for the GOP Presidents and deliberate prejudices(s) against the DEMs.


Were our four murdered personnel unarmed?
Why does GOP Chair Buck McKeon of Armed Services say there is nothing new here?

As anti-Obamanists ignore the bi-partisan Senate committee.
Click to expand...


I get it. You are going to make excuses and try to divert attention from Obama and his crew. That is fine. They were negligent in their duties and should be held accountable. By our current government's standards, that means nothing will happen to them.

American's were asking for help. This administration denied them. This administration will have to live with the consequences. They need to come clean on the story and everyone will move past it.

And to answer your question, no, not all 4 men who were killed were armed.
 
Blue_State said:
I really don't want to make this about the Barracks, but you are still misrepresenting. In your quotes, Reagan isn't denying them what they need. They were in the process of addressing it, just not fast enough by your quote.

Also, the gate was armed. The only Marine to chamber a round was in the guard house.

The difference is, NOTHING was done about Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Don't you see how horribly hypocritical this is?

April 18, 1983: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 63.
October 23, 1983: a suicide bomber detonates a truck in the Marine barracks killing 299.
September 20th, 1984: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 20. The embassy had been open 6 weeks.

September 23rd, 1984: When asked why security recommendations hadn't been implemented in the rebuilt embassy Regan responded 'Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.'

But that's okay. They were in the "process" of doing something about security; hey at least this time the guards were allowed to load their weapons. 17 months and two other attacks was not enough to figure out that it's time to do something about suicide truck bombs. But Obama on the other hand: 125-150 attackers killed 4 in two separate attacks in Benghazi. Contemporaneously, attacks on the Cairo, Yemen, Tunis and Khartoum embassies didn't result in any fatalities.

There isn't even a word for how different the two situations are. After the THIRD horrific attack; including one on on a building you just rebuilt from the ground up because it was destroyed; the president claims we're working on it and that's enough for you. Put a Democrat in the office and one lapse is the worst thing that's every happened.
 
Mithros said:
Don't you see how horribly hypocritical this is?

April 18, 1983: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 63.
October 23, 1983: a suicide bomber detonates a truck in the Marine barracks killing 299.
September 20th, 1984: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 20. The embassy had been open 6 weeks.

September 23rd, 1984: When asked why security recommendations hadn't been implemented in the rebuilt embassy Regan responded 'Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.'

But that's okay. They were in the "process" of doing something about security; hey at least this time the guards were allowed to load their weapons. 17 months and two other attacks was not enough to figure out that it's time to do something about suicide truck bombs. But Obama on the other hand: 125-150 attackers killed 4 in two separate attacks in Benghazi. Contemporaneously, attacks on the Cairo, Yemen, Tunis and Khartoum embassies didn't result in any fatalities.

There isn't even a word for how different the two situations are. After the THIRD horrific attack; including one on on a building you just rebuilt from the ground up because it was destroyed; the president claims we're working on it and that's enough for you. Put a Democrat in the office and one lapse is the worst thing that's every happened.
Click to expand...

As I said, let's not change the subject. If you want them to make a commission on that, then fine. We are talking about Benghazi.
 
Mithros said:
Don't you see how horribly hypocritical this is?

April 18, 1983: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 63.
October 23, 1983: a suicide bomber detonates a truck in the Marine barracks killing 299.
September 20th, 1984: a suicide bomber detonated a truck in the Beruit Embassy killing 20. The embassy had been open 6 weeks.

September 23rd, 1984: When asked why security recommendations hadn't been implemented in the rebuilt embassy Regan responded 'Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.'

But that's okay. They were in the "process" of doing something about security; hey at least this time the guards were allowed to load their weapons. 17 months and two other attacks was not enough to figure out that it's time to do something about suicide truck bombs. But Obama on the other hand: 125-150 attackers killed 4 in two separate attacks in Benghazi. Contemporaneously, attacks on the Cairo, Yemen, Tunis and Khartoum embassies didn't result in any fatalities.

There isn't even a word for how different the two situations are. After the THIRD horrific attack; including one on on a building you just rebuilt from the ground up because it was destroyed; the president claims we're working on it and that's enough for you. Put a Democrat in the office and one lapse is the worst thing that's every happened.
Click to expand...

As I said, let's not change the subject. If you want them to make a commission on that, then fine. We are talking about Benghazi.
 
Boo Radley said:
You'll recall, nothing happened to Bush. Nothing. And he went way beyond the PDB's. And you and others were never, ever outraged. How can you now expect your outrage to be taken seriously. You set the bar.
Click to expand...

Never stopped you (liberals) from incessantly pestering threads with name calling, and worse...But I get it, you really don't care when American's are killed, at least when its a demo in office...;)

There was a hypothetical we discussed at the time Joe, where I was trying to get at when you would act in the face of terrorism if your own family was in danger...Do you remember that? It was concerning "pro active" vs. "after the fact".... It is clear that liberals just don't want to act at all, even when their own fellow citizens, and ambassadors are killed...
 
Mithros said:
View attachment 67166027

Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?

Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...

But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source that says Reagan ordered Marines to not load their weapons?
 
American said:
Do you have a source that says Reagan ordered Marines to not load their weapons?
Click to expand...

I am sure that the Rules of Engagement (ROE) did not come from the Oval Office. They typical come from theater command.
 
American said:
Do you have a source that says Reagan ordered Marines to not load their weapons?
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't...That's just one of the many double standards liberal progressives operate under, and don't even see it in themselves....If this were a republican president in office and we were trying these stupid covers for him, we'ed hear to no end how blind partisans or worse...

Another part I am growing sick and damned tired of is the constant justification using 'the Bush administration did it too' as if that makes it all ok...If when my kids were little, and came to me with 'Meagan did it first' bull crap, they'd both be punished for trying to do something wrong by using another wrong to get away with it...It's juvenile...
 
Boo Radley said:
And this is about the new thread. You don't understand that you guys killed any chance of having outrage here because you had none when it matter. You're the reason this won't likely go anywhere. You guys set the bar. You're now not seen as having any substance because of your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
So, to be fair... which we all know you want to be... this is your bar, and this is why you will have no outrage at the next Republican misdeed.
 
Blue_State said:
As I said, let's not change the subject. If you want them to make a commission on that, then fine. We are talking about Benghazi.
Click to expand...
It's all the same subject! The Republicans are like little kids who've eaten glue and spread finger paint all over the walls, then take a hissy fit when their mom knocks over the paper towels cleaning up their mess. Benghazi was a tragedy, but there is simply no context. Yes he has his faults, but Obama has done a damn fine job keeping America safe. That's more than can be said for any modern GOP president except George HW Bush.

Bush 43 and Reagan both repeatedly demonstrated colossal incompetence in both security and intelligence. Benghazi wouldn’t even be a footnote in either of their presidencies yet it is the centerpiece of Republican "policy".
 
American said:
Do you have a source that says Reagan ordered Marines to not load their weapons?
Click to expand...

Hammel, Eric M. The Root: The Marines in Beirut, August 1982-February 1984. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1985
Sentries were ordered to keep their weapons at condition four (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber). Only one sentry, LCpl Eddie DiFranco, was able to load and chamber a round.


This is after a suicide bombing at the US embassy April 18, 1983 killed 63 people. The Marines weren't even able to fire off a shot and 241 Americans died. A few months later, the Embassy was blown up again. 17 months after the first bombing, security recommendations STILL hadn't been implemented. Reagan’s response 'Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.'.


j-mac said:
Of course he doesn't...That's just one of the many double standards liberal progressives operate under, and don't even see it in themselves....If this were a republican president in office and we were trying these stupid covers for him, we'ed hear to no end how blind partisans or worse...

Another part I am growing sick and damned tired of is the constant justification using 'the Bush administration did it too' as if that makes it all ok...If when my kids were little, and came to me with 'Meagan did it first' bull crap, they'd both be punished for trying to do something wrong by using another wrong to get away with it...It's juvenile...
Click to expand...
Btw.. apology accepted.
 
Blue_State said:
I am sure that the Rules of Engagement (ROE) did not come from the Oval Office. They typical come from theater command.
Click to expand...

The problem was they were under UN designated commanders, which is where the whole business started and the US never again allowed direct command of our troops by non-US military personnel. We were acting like a bunch of blue hats. You don't camp Marines in a building like that and not provide the proper security, but the UN wanted to be all PC and not offend the natives. Our commanders went along with this bull****, and we got people killed for no good reason.
 
j-mac said:
Of course he doesn't...That's just one of the many double standards liberal progressives operate under, and don't even see it in themselves....If this were a republican president in office and we were trying these stupid covers for him, we'ed hear to no end how blind partisans or worse...

Another part I am growing sick and damned tired of is the constant justification using 'the Bush administration did it too' as if that makes it all ok...If when my kids were little, and came to me with 'Meagan did it first' bull crap, they'd both be punished for trying to do something wrong by using another wrong to get away with it...It's juvenile...
Click to expand...

what "double-standard"? those of your point of view habitually post appeals to ignorance and claim they are right, simply because they are on the right.
 
j-mac said:
Never stopped you (liberals) from incessantly pestering threads with name calling, and worse...But I get it, you really don't care when American's are killed, at least when its a demo in office...;)

There was a hypothetical we discussed at the time Joe, where I was trying to get at when you would act in the face of terrorism if your own family was in danger...Do you remember that? It was concerning "pro active" vs. "after the fact".... It is clear that liberals just don't want to act at all, even when their own fellow citizens, and ambassadors are killed...
Click to expand...

I do not protect my family by killing Able when Kane is the threat. You never got that. Nor to I lead men to die in the thousands based on lies. You, however, didn't mind at all.

On the other hand, if you show Obama lies lead to deaths, with at least as much evidence as there is against Bush, I'll call him the same. No one who makes excuses for Bush lies really cares about people dying.
 
radcen said:
So, to be fair... which we all know you want to be... this is your bar, and this is why you will have no outrage at the next Republican misdeed.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's false. My bar is still higher. But Bush supporters clearly set a much lower bar.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't understand why someone would say that. Our security was a complete and utter failure...our intelligence a complete and utter failure...and we didn't even attempt to send help to honor those who were fighting for their lives.

How is investigating that abject failure trying to score political points??
Click to expand...
Intelligence is such an oxymoron when speaking in tactical military terms....trust me, I know lol. I raided more than a few "WMD Factories" in 2003 Iraq lol.
 
Mithros said:
It's all the same subject! The Republicans are like little kids who've eaten glue and spread finger paint all over the walls, then take a hissy fit when their mom knocks over the paper towels cleaning up their mess. Benghazi was a tragedy, but there is simply no context. Yes he has his faults, but Obama has done a damn fine job keeping America safe. That's more than can be said for any modern GOP president except George HW Bush.

Bush 43 and Reagan both repeatedly demonstrated colossal incompetence in both security and intelligence. Benghazi wouldn’t even be a footnote in either of their presidencies yet it is the centerpiece of Republican "policy".
Click to expand...

You inability to understand the situation is probably why you wrote that. Out of the Presidents you named, which one is the sitting president now? Out of the Presidents you named, which one didn't receive flak for their policy decisions?

Stop wrapping the people in power in a snuggie. Make them respond and stand accountable for their actions. That is all we want. Transparency, not cover up.
 
American said:
The problem was they were under UN designated commanders, which is where the whole business started and the US never again allowed direct command of our troops by non-US military personnel. We were acting like a bunch of blue hats. You don't camp Marines in a building like that and not provide the proper security, but the UN wanted to be all PC and not offend the natives. Our commanders went along with this bull****, and we got people killed for no good reason.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Reinforces what I said though. It came from the command structure, not the President.
 
Boo Radley said:
I do not protect my family by killing Able when Kane is the threat. You never got that. Nor to I lead men to die in the thousands based on lies. You, however, didn't mind at all.

On the other hand, if you show Obama lies lead to deaths, with at least as much evidence as there is against Bush, I'll call him the same. No one who makes excuses for Bush lies really cares about people dying.
Click to expand...

Actually, you just need to look at embassy deaths to see Bush is way ahead of Obama.

Bob Cesca: 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News


The Republican inquisition over the attacks against Americans in Benghazi has never really gone away, but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House Oversight Committee's Benghazi hearings this week there are renewed psycho-histrionics over Benghazi.

Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation -- turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie her presidential run before it even begins.

. . .

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
Click to expand...

There are 13 attacks total...
 
American said:
NSC Spokesman On Benghazi: Dude, That Was Two Years Ago - Business Insider



The brazen arrogance is familiar isn't it? It's what we've come to expect of an elitist, egotistical, maniacal administration.
Click to expand...

Well the progressive argument has always been "so what" - they think they can do whatever the frack they want and if someone calls them out on their bull**** these same progressive liars and criminals just label them "radicals, extremists or terrorists."

Their politics are tyrannical and the way they deal with dissent is arrogant, belligerent and at time psychopathic.

Then of course they carry around this attitude in which they get offended for even being questioned.

I've never seen such a snug and arrogant administration such as Obama's.

I can't wait until these narcissistic clowns have been booted.

These people are so insane it wouldn't shock me if they said; "don't question us or we will have the IRS up your ass and you will get no food." As bizarre as that sounds I wouldn't be shocked if Pelosi or Carney or even Obama said that... Well Obama has already implied that - not in those words but certainly told the US populace he was a victim of republicans and hence now can just pass bills without congressional approval.
 
Also I would like to add that Obama believes voter ID laws are undemocratic yet he believes he has the right to circumvent the democratic process in congress to pass legislation..

Obama is such a tyrannical liar and a tool.
 
Blue_State said:
You inability to understand the situation is probably why you wrote that. Out of the Presidents you named, which one is the sitting president now? Out of the Presidents you named, which one didn't receive flak for their policy decisions?

Stop wrapping the people in power in a snuggie. Make them respond and stand accountable for their actions. That is all we want. Transparency, not cover up.
Click to expand...

My inability to understand what situation? Benghazi? It's the conservative outrage vehicle of choice at the moment now that Obama care seems to be working. It will change to Susan Rice in a week or so after Republicans realize that their hypocrisy is so blatant on this that even the faithful start to notice. Then this board will fill up with rants about that.

This is what happens when a party can no longer govern.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well the progressive argument has always been "so what" - they think they can do whatever the frack they want and if someone calls them out on their bull**** these same progressive liars and criminals just label them "radicals, extremists or terrorists."

Their politics are tyrannical and the way they deal with dissent is arrogant, belligerent and at time psychopathic.

Then of course they carry around this attitude in which they get offended for even being questioned.

I've never seen such a snug and arrogant administration such as Obama's.

I can't wait until these narcissistic clowns have been booted.

These people are so insane it wouldn't shock me if they said; "don't question us or we will have the IRS up your ass and you will get no food." As bizarre as that sounds I wouldn't be shocked if Pelosi or Carney or even Obama said that... Well Obama has already implied that - not in those words but certainly told the US populace he was a victim of republicans and hence now can just pass bills without congressional approval.
Click to expand...

In summary: Obama and Progressives are liars, criminals, radicals, extremists, terrorists, tyrannical, arrogant, belligerent, psychopathic, snug, arrogant, narcissistic.

Sounds like you're more Bowerick Wowbagger than John Galt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom