Page 7 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 405

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

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    You said everything I wanted to. Thanks for that. Those who put their heads in the sand
    for this loser of a president and care nothing about the people who died in Libya are sick.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    See if you can understand this:

    Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

    That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

    The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.

  2. #62
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    What would you say if I told you that President G.W. Bush was just following the law that former President Clinton signed in to law ?
    I'd say lets see a link to that law.

    Think back to 2003 when the Bush administration first went in front of Congress. Before WMD's were part of going to war. Remember ?

    FWI: I was not a big supporter of going in too Iraq, especially with Clinton's military, only being able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.

    But once our troops crossed the border in to Iraq, remembering what it was like being stabbed in the back while on the battlefield of Vietnam by my own peers and the Democrats who sent me to Vietnam, never again. Once our troops were committed, I was going to back them up 100 %
    I seriously doubt that Clinton would have ever invaded Iraq and neither would've Gore. The only people really intent on attacking Iraq were Bush and his neocon advisors and they said as much in a letter to Clinton back in 1998.

    Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

  3. #63
    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 Catawba View Post
    Funny how you rationalize tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths due to bad intelligence in Iraq yet are outraged by four deaths due to bad intelligence in Benghazi.

    BTW, at least the majority of Congressional Democrats that voted against AOF in Iraq did not fall for the bad intell.
    Funny how you rationalize that Benghazi is just about the 4 Deaths not just due to bad intel. But for the incompetence to not even being able to recognize clear warning signs that had already had our people placed at Risk. All of our People in Libya. Also noting the trivialization of a US Ambassador being killed. 2 Former Navy Seals who should be having their Story of Bravery and Heroics told. Course maybe when you figure out why the statements of NONE of the survivors have been made public then you might have the beginnings of a major clue.

    Which btw the Majority of Democrats, Clinton and Obama knew what it was like in Libya since the ouster of Gadhafi. Which they knew it was the Will Wild West and that the TNC could not protect our people. That's the Host government. That Clinton failed to make any note of, while sending Stevens there to assist in the removal of weapons to Syria. Despite the US denial and despite Clintons Friends of Syria Meetings wherein she admitted to the US involvement in assisting with soft aid.

    Moreover this does not include compromising the CIA and any operations they had going on. As well as the Safe-house.

  4. #64
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,909

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    See if you can understand this:

    Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

    That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

    The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.
    Where were the nearest gunships? Italy? France? Spain?

    The only reinforcement who were on hand who could actively defend the embassey was Libyan forces

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    [QUOTE=Unitedwestand13;1061480243]
    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post

    Apache I will never understand your definition of political correctness. Are the diplomatic relations we have with Arabic countries expendable in our desire for revenge?
    Most American wanted revenge after 9/11. But getting the revenge you want doesn't win the war.

    There are or were to many Americans who thought the war against Al Qaeda was all about Bin Laden. Many think that Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11. Bin Laden only signed off on the 9/11 attacks and financed the operation.

    The mastermind of 9/11, the person who planned it, oversaw the training, the command and control of the attacks on 9-11-01 was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. (Rod Jeremy's look alike) KSM was captured in 2003, he was #2 in the Al Qaeda organization.

    And as we saw, when the CIA threw some water in the face of KSM, the liberals went berserk ! Even though they don't have the cajones to admit that the information that was gathered from enhanced interrogation of KSM led to finding OBL.

    The vast majority of Americans are clueless on how the Bush administration was fighting Al Qaeda. The reason why they are clueless is because they aren't suppose to know. They aren't in the position to know.

    Remember last year when someone in the CIA sent up a red flag that the Obama administration has been working off of all of the intelligence gathered during the Bush administration and it drying up fast because the Obama administration is killing Al Qaeda instead of capturing Al Qaeda to gather intelligence information. May explain why the Obama administration were clueless that Al Qaeda was in Libya. One has to wonder if Obama really thought that Al Qaeda was close to be being defeated and wasn't aware that during his term in office that Al Qaeda has expanded all over the Middle East and North Africa. If Obama did know, then he was lying to the American people to get reelected telling America that "Al Qaeda is on the run"





    We didn't go in to Afghanastan just to capture or kill OBL, we went in to Afghanastan to remove the Taliban who allowed Al Qaeda to use Afghanastan for training and to launch terrorist attacks against the Western world from. The Taliban weren't terrorist, they have never launched a terrorist attack against Westerners outside of Afghasatan.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I'd say lets see a link to that law.



    I seriously doubt that Clinton would have ever invaded Iraq and neither would've Gore. The only people really intent on attacking Iraq were Bush and his neocon advisors and they said as much in a letter to Clinton back in 1998.

    Letter to President Clinton on Iraq
    The law that President Clinton signed was the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1999."

    And I concur, Clinton is a pantywaist, he never had the cajones to deal with Saddam Huesain. But G.W. Bush did.

    >" I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
    II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
    III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

    Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first
    day without UNSCOM monitoring.

    "Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM
    monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments
    regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat,
    namely to overthrow Saddam.

    On Oct 30, Radio Free Iraq began broadcasting. In an Oct 30 press
    statement, David Newton, head of RFI, explained "that in addition to
    local news about Iraq, programs will focus on democracy, free speech and
    human rights. 'Under the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein,
    people in Iraq never a chance to hear about these issues,' said Newton,
    a former US ambassador to Iraq. He says broadcasts to Iraq will
    eventually expand to six hours a day, airing in the Arabic as well as
    Kurdish languages." Transcripts and RealAudio of the broadcasts will be
    available at Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

    Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act
    of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House,
    Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress
    that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi
    opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the
    bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the
    current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I
    signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
    Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance
    to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required
    by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile
    information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity,
    and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to
    justice those directly responsible for such acts."
    Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not
    less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi
    democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should
    be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The
    conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than
    $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War
    Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of
    Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration
    to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the
    Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq."
    The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's
    signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began
    by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing
    the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.
    The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of
    any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is
    the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will
    rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and
    that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.
    Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be
    free of weapons of mass destruction."

    I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
    October 31, 1998
    The White House
    Office of the Press Secretary
    For Immediate Release
    October 31, 1998
    Statement by thePpresident
    Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
    1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
    the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
    that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
    of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
    in Baghdad now offers.
    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
    The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
    freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
    of our allies within the region.
    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
    at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
    due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
    deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
    The United States looks forward to a democratically supported
    regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the
    reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
    My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
    objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
    Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
    changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
    In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the
    Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in
    check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of
    the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition
    groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a
    popularly supported government.
    On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated
    and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8
    million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
    This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,
    work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the
    Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will
    include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required
    by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
    105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
    plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
    Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
    a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
    crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a
    step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
    acts.
    The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,
    discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to
    further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other
    important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of
    U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's
    prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that
    continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to
    international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi
    opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives
    as well.
    Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can
    effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those
    observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
    WILLIAM J. CLINTON
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 31, 1998 "< Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

  7. #67
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,909

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

    [QUOTE=APACHERAT;1061480442]
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post

    Most American wanted revenge after 9/11. But getting the revenge you want doesn't win the war.

    There are or were to many Americans who thought the war against Al Qaeda was all about Bin Laden. Many think that Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11. Bin Laden only signed off on the 9/11 attacks and financed the operation.

    The mastermind of 9/11, the person who planned it, oversaw the training, the command and control of the attacks on 9-11-01 was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. (Rod Jeremy's look alike) KSM was captured in 2003, he was #2 in the Al Qaeda organization.

    And as we saw, when the CIA threw some water in the face of KSM, the liberals went berserk ! Even though they don't have the cajones to admit that the information that was gathered from enhanced interrogation of KSM led to finding OBL.

    The vast majority of Americans are clueless on how the Bush administration was fighting Al Qaeda. The reason why they are clueless is because they aren't suppose to know. They aren't in the position to know.

    Remember last year when someone in the CIA sent up a red flag that the Obama administration has been working off of all of the intelligence gathered during the Bush administration and it drying up fast because the Obama administration is killing Al Qaeda instead of capturing Al Qaeda to gather intelligence information. May explain why the Obama administration were clueless that Al Qaeda was in Libya. One has to wonder if Obama really thought that Al Qaeda was close to be being defeated and wasn't aware that during his term in office that Al Qaeda has expanded all over the Middle East and North Africa. If Obama did know, then he was lying to the American people to get reelected telling America that "Al Qaeda is on the run"





    We didn't go in to Afghanastan just to capture or kill OBL, we went in to Afghanastan to remove the Taliban who allowed Al Qaeda to use Afghanastan for training and to launch terrorist attacks against the Western world from. The Taliban weren't terrorist, they have never launched a terrorist attack against Westerners outside of Afghasatan.
    What evidence can you show that it was al Qaeda behind the attack? It could have been another group behind the attack.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Uh no, Bush or should I say Cheney rejected Clinton's policy in favor of his own. The results speak for themselves.

    A lot more classified material has been released since the 9/11 Commission Report so be sure to watch "Hubris, the Selling of the Iraq War" on MSNBC tonight . It should be very informative.

    Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War - Monday 2/18 at 9 p.m. ET - The Maddow Blog
    MSNBC Rachelle Maddow

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ray410 View Post
    See if you can understand this:

    Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives.
    Clearly this is worse than 9-11 and the Iraqi conflict, in which Bush prevailed at almost no cost to American soldier's lives and almost no taxpayer dollars.

    You conservatives and your pseudo problems. No wonder you'll do nothing but lose elections from now on.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    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
    I read it.


    What did the president do when he heard? What orders did he give? Why did the president depart and show no further interest in the Abandoned Four who had no choice but to be murdered during Obama's Benghazi Massacre?

Page 7 of 41 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •