Page 27 of 41 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 405

Thread: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

  1. #261
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,475

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Really.....well when the Democrats can get past leading 56k to death in NAM. Then you might actually have a leg to stand on. Course that's one of those history things that the Democrats just cant get rid of. Their History.
    Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now. They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused. If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now. They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused. If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.
    Yeah and.....still doesn't change up that History and Another thing All Republicans aren't Neo-Cons. But lets not digress with that history that Democrats can't get past. Lets deal with Benghazi. This is where the Democrats have made major blunders both tactically and strategically. Not to mention politically.

    Where 2 Committees have found GROSS negligence. Incompetency, which has affected National Security, Compromised CIA Operations, placed US Personnel and Assets at Risk, and was the cause of 4 deaths. Which included a US Ambassador.

    Currently we have no justice as Obama has said. We also now know that with the event in Egypt earlier that Day. Which dealt with another issue of Obamas Foreign Policy. That Obama thru the explanations of his own people. Who was away Partying(campaigning) dropped the ball on the Anniversary of 911. Wherein 23 Muslims Countries rose up and Protested the US and we know that Social media was used by a Sunni Cleric in Egypt. Who began that Riot and Protest in Egypt was also in fact the one to Use Social media to call on all Sunni Muslims to Demonstrate, and protest the US.

    Which we now know from Panetta that he only talked to Obama one time at 5pm. Which Panetta admits to.

    We also now have Panetta and General Dempsey Putting the Blame squarely on the State Dept and Hillary. Who has ran off thinking she should have to suffer no consequences whatsoever.

  3. #263
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    01-19-18 @ 09:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,475

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    I didn't say it was from your article.....I said it was from your SOURCE. Did I not?
    It's not the same source because your article was quoting an unknown reader and made little sense.

    That maybe the case about the blogger.....but that doesn't change up what is in the Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication. Which is why I brought this Bloggers piece up to bear from your Source the Weekly Standard.
    "Fools rush in where others fear to tread." Did you read the first page of the Marine Doctrinal Publication on Warfare that your source quoted from, where it says that it's not a manual, it's a philosophy and the publication should be read from cover to cover in it's entirety so as not to take it out of context? No? Well, that explains why your source didn't make any sense. But hey, here's a quote from the Marine Doctrinal Publications on Intelligence.....

    “And therefore I say: Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    Gen. Dempsy and Panetta both stressed they didn't have enough intelligence on the ground to know what was going on at the consolate in order to respond. Why don't you believe them? Do you really believe they wanted Amb. Stevens and others to die?


    Okay Fixed Wing.....What happened to the Aircraft carrier that was sitting off Libya?
    As far as I can tell there weren't any aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or anywhere near Libya. Which is probably why Panetta kept saying they couldn't respond in time because of the distance.

    "......This is a standard complement of Navy forces in the sea, and as of now, the Navy is not moving ships to Libya in response to the crisis. There are no aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at present...."
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/marines-libya/

    Snapshot of U.S. warships sent to Libya | UTSanDiego.com

    But they did know where Stevens was before the battle began.....as he was on the front street out in front of Consulate with The Turks Envoy one hour before the battle began. Then he returned inside the Consulate. Which btw where there were no protestors whatsoever. Yet......Obama sent Susan Rice to make the Rounds on a Sunday to say there were protestors and that was the Intel they had at the time. Which now has been proven to be totally false.
    But that was the intel they had at the time. What purpose would Rice have for lying about the attack? What difference does it make if the terrorists attacked because of a video or 9/11 or revenge for some cleric? It doesn't change the fact that it was a well co-ordinated, planned attack or that people were killed or that without intelligence from the ground the response would still have been the same regardless of the terrorists motive.

    Who Sent out Susan Rice to make the talk Shows? Clinton or Obama? Oh. and that Obama meaning would include Word from the White House or any Senior Staff that would be in touch with Obama to let him know. But was the individual to relay the Presidents acknowledgement to do so.

    After this point there is the issue that the American People were lied to Publicly. Also Thru the Election on questions brought up about Benghazi.
    I don't know, did Rice ever say who sent her out on the talk shows? I think she was just relaying information that was available at the time about a fluid and ongoing situtation. I've read several articles from the first day or two after the attack and they were all pretty much saying the same the thing that Susan Rice did. I really don't think what she did was that big of deal, at least not when compared to the months of misinformation and outright lies we were told during the buildup to the Iraq invasion.

  4. #264
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    It's not the same source because your article was quoting an unknown reader and made little sense.

    "Fools rush in where others fear to tread." Did you read the first page of the Marine Doctrinal Publication on Warfare that your source quoted from, where it says that it's not a manual, it's a philosophy and the publication should be read from cover to cover in it's entirety so as not to take it out of context? No? Well, that explains why your source didn't make any sense. But hey, here's a quote from the Marine Doctrinal Publications on Intelligence.....

    “And therefore I say: Know the enemy, know yourself; your victory will never be endangered. Know the ground, know the weather; your victory will then be total.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    Gen. Dempsy and Panetta both stressed they didn't have enough intelligence on the ground to know what was going on at the consolate in order to respond. Why don't you believe them? Do you really believe they wanted Amb. Stevens and others to die?


    As far as I can tell there weren't any aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea or anywhere near Libya. Which is probably why Panetta kept saying they couldn't respond in time because of the distance.

    "......This is a standard complement of Navy forces in the sea, and as of now, the Navy is not moving ships to Libya in response to the crisis. There are no aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at present...."
    Marines Head to Libya After Mob Kills Ambassador | Danger Room | Wired.com

    Snapshot of U.S. warships sent to Libya | UTSanDiego.com

    But that was the intel they had at the time. What purpose would Rice have for lying about the attack? What difference does it make if the terrorists attacked because of a video or 9/11 or revenge for some cleric? It doesn't change the fact that it was a well co-ordinated, planned attack or that people were killed or that without intelligence from the ground the response would still have been the same regardless of the terrorists motive.

    I don't know, did Rice ever say who sent her out on the talk shows? I think she was just relaying information that was available at the time about a fluid and ongoing situtation. I've read several articles from the first day or two after the attack and they were all pretty much saying the same the thing that Susan Rice did. I really don't think what she did was that big of deal, at least not when compared to the months of misinformation and outright lies we were told during the buildup to the Iraq invasion.
    I already admitted it wasn't from your article but it was from your Source the Weekly Standard as that's where the links goes to. Which you cannot deny that.

    That's great that you can cite Some Sun Tzu. Course I prefer Musahsi.

    Yes we know what Panetta and Dempsey said. What did Petraeus say?

    That's Right there was no Aircraft in the Region.....but there was Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer there. Which I am glad you aptly found and put up. No Aircraft: that's what Panetta and Dempsey says. Yet all new Arleigh Burkes come with not one but 2 Helicopters.

    Technical specifications of Arleigh Burke-class warship:
    •Length: 509 feet (early versions were 505 feet)
    •Beam: 66 feet
    •Draft: 30.5 feet
    •Speed: Up to 35 mph
    •Range: 4,400 miles
    •Crew: 270-280
    Aircraft: Up to two MH-60R Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters (on new versions of ship)
    •Sources: US Navy, Defense Department, UPI, Defense Insiders Daily, Wikipedia,

    Moreover.....does the US have Allies in the Region? So you don't think we could have got airpower? Borrowed, used, manipulated our way into some planes?

    Because Rice knew there was no Protest outside the Consulate. Despite what the White House talking point was. What difference it makes is due to all that I put in the post above yours. Plus the difference is to make sure those who failed in their jobs take not only responsibility but whatever Repercussions that comes with them. In this case if it means the destruction of Clinton's Career and future ambition.....So be it!

    Also it matters as Team Obama's eyes were elsewhere. Plus lets not forget the Obama couldn't have us get Caught sending weapons to Syria after he publicly said he wouldn't give arms to the Syrian Rebels, now.....could he? So it also matters as it was on the Anniversary of 911 when Team Obama should have been making sure they were on top of all Intel for that day. Not worry about getting re-elected. Do you think that one day or weekend could have been like a timeout for Campaign Time?

    But no.....see at the time Obama was getting desperate as many polls had Romney winning which all was round here later pointing that very fact out while saying what happened. Whats was up with your polls.....Remember. Well, do you think there really is some excuse for that weekend? Ask yourself this.....what would have been Obamas schedule if there wouldn't have been NO Election. Think he would have been more concentrated on issues with the Country rather than his own Personal Campaign?

  5. #265
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverOprah
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,654

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

    When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

    Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

    Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

    Scribd
    "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  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: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Really, Vietnam, huh? The war hawk Democrats joined Reagan in the early 1980s and are called Neo-conservatives now.
    The Vietnam War was over in 1975, five years before Ronald Reagan took office.
    They became GWBush's closet advisors and are largely responsible for misleading the country into war on Iraq and have absolutely no remorse for the damage they've caused.
    Which "they" are you referring to?
    If they get back into power they intend to invade Iran under the same false pretenses... because u know, they had such a huge success with Vietnam and Iraq. So when it comes to taking responsibility and learning from past mistakes, its Republicans that don't have a leg to stand on because neo-conservatives are their baggage, now.
    The Vietnam War was started by the Democrats and ended by the Republicans.

    Now that you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge of side issues such as Abu Ghraib and Vietnam, why not continue your streak with your views on Benghazi, the topic of the thread?

  7. #267
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
    That might well be the slogan for the next presidential election.

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    That might well be the slogan for the next presidential election.
    See the part I was looking at comes from a CNN Security Clearance Report for some of our Ships that got placed in the Med but that was in Nov of 2011. Which was after the attack which then said we were worried about arms being ran to Gaza, but then ships with Harrier Jets too. Done after the issue of Benghazi, although should have been implemented with those that were flying over Libya when ousting Gadhafi, when did they move that Aircraft Carrier was my question.....evidenced.

    "This is post-Benghazi," one military official told CNN. "We're looking at instability in Libya, Egypt, Syria and now Israel and Gaza."

    The Navy just extended by at least 10 days the tour of three amphibious ships carrying more than 2,000 Marines, Harrier jets, V-22 tilt rotor aircraft and a variety of helicopters, as CNN first reported last week.

    Those tours were extended as a result of the conflict in Gaza as a precautionary measure should there have been a need to evacuate Americans from Israel. A cease-fire was reached on Wednesday after a week of violence.

    The Pentagon is focusing on the eastern Mediterranean, where the ships will stay, the military official told CNN.

    The Navy also previously announced that four warships capable of providing ballistic missile defense will now be based at Rota, Spain, putting them closer to potential threats from Syria and Iran. They are the USS Ross, the USS Donald Cook, the USS Carney and the USS Porter. Four other ships are stationed off the coast of Israel as a hedge against any ballistic missile launch from Iran.

    U.S. considers increasing military presence in Mediterranean – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

    Yet they didn't list the names of those 4 ships off the Israeli Coast.

  9. #269
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    See the part I was looking at comes from a CNN Security Clearance Report for some of our Ships that got placed in the Med but that was in Nov of 2011. Which was after the attack which then said we were worried about arms being ran to Gaza, but then ships with Harrier Jets too. Done after the issue of Benghazi, although should have been implemented with those that were flying over Libya when ousting Gadhafi, when did they move that Aircraft Carrier was my question.....evidenced.

    "This is post-Benghazi," one military official told CNN. "We're looking at instability in Libya, Egypt, Syria and now Israel and Gaza."

    The Navy just extended by at least 10 days the tour of three amphibious ships carrying more than 2,000 Marines, Harrier jets, V-22 tilt rotor aircraft and a variety of helicopters, as CNN first reported last week.

    Those tours were extended as a result of the conflict in Gaza as a precautionary measure should there have been a need to evacuate Americans from Israel. A cease-fire was reached on Wednesday after a week of violence.

    The Pentagon is focusing on the eastern Mediterranean, where the ships will stay, the military official told CNN.

    The Navy also previously announced that four warships capable of providing ballistic missile defense will now be based at Rota, Spain, putting them closer to potential threats from Syria and Iran. They are the USS Ross, the USS Donald Cook, the USS Carney and the USS Porter. Four other ships are stationed off the coast of Israel as a hedge against any ballistic missile launch from Iran.

    U.S. considers increasing military presence in Mediterranean – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

    Yet they didn't list the names of those 4 ships off the Israeli Coast.
    The very last paragraph is also telling.

    A U.S. official told CNN that the current assessment by the intelligence community is that surface to air missiles from Libya have made their way into Gaza after being smuggled through Egypt.
    We simply cannot beieve what the Libyan Government says, or the Egyptian, or indeed any Islamic country has to say. We can only judge them according to their actions, and we can easily see what those actions have been.

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi


Page 27 of 41 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
  •