Page 8 of 41 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 405

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

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    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?
    See your problem is that you think what the President did or did not do is critical to the situation and how and why it transpired. And all your interested in is what you can find that the President did, or how you can make what happen look like the responsibility of the President for the purpose of attacking him. You have no interested in what actually happened, or where along the dozens of levels of the chain of command from this consulate to the President were there failures that allowed this to happen. No what this is an excuse to attack the President and nothing more.

  2. #72
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    See your problem is that you think what the President did or did not do is critical to the situation and how and why it transpired. And all your interested in is what you can find that the President did, or how you can make what happen look like the responsibility of the President for the purpose of attacking him. You have no interested in what actually happened, or where along the dozens of levels of the chain of command from this consulate to the President were there failures that allowed this to happen. No what this is an excuse to attack the President and nothing more.
    Yet you go to the opposite extreme and assert that due to the complexity of the situation that nobody "high up" is to blame. Consider the case of the BP gulf rig or Exxon Valdez "accidents"; while clearly the corporate heads and stockholders were not at fault, for the oil spills, they were still held fully accountable.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #73
    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 Moot View Post
    Wow, that's quite a stretch considering Richard Clarke briefed the Bush administration that Al Qaeda intended to fly planes into symbolic national infrastructure inside US borders.....

    Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

    The President's Daily Brief Coverup


    Not to mention that Bush gave the Bin Laden family an exclusive secret flight out of the US and let Osama Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. It all could have been over in a few weeks....but that would have foiled the Bush administrations plan to attack Iraq.
    I read both documents. I did see in the PDB that Al Qaeda cells in the US were making preparations for hijackings. Where was the part about flying the hijacked aircraft into buildings found?

  4. #74
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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.


    But no problem with the president leading the nation into an almost decade long war based on bad intel, despite all the warnings that Iraq was not a threat to the US, right..................!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #75
    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
    See your problem is that you think what the President did or did not do is critical to the situation and how and why it transpired. And all your interested in is what you can find that the President did, or how you can make what happen look like the responsibility of the President for the purpose of attacking him. You have no interested in what actually happened, or where along the dozens of levels of the chain of command from this consulate to the President were there failures that allowed this to happen. No what this is an excuse to attack the President and nothing more.
    and you have the opposite problem.

    I have great interest in what actually happened. The president said he would have a thorough investigation so he could find out what he did. Well? What did he do?

    Who, in your opinion, can order cross border military operations?

  6. #76
    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 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.
    G.H. Bush went to war against Iraq with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.

    G.W. Bush went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.

    Bush's Generals warned Bush, we can defeat the Iraqi military and accomplish the mission of "regime change" but we have to have 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq after the mission is accomplished.

    Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld says "You go to war with what you got."

    Saddam Hussein believes G.W. Bush is bluffing, who would invade Iraq with only 200,000 troops ?

    Bush wasn't bluffing.

    Read the F.B.I. interrogation of Saddam Hussein and get back to me. -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

    BTW: I knew it had nothing to do with WMD's or even oil. I knew back in 2001 that there was going to be a regime change in Iraq. Bush was going to take care of the problem that Clinton couldn't accomplish in eight years.

  7. #77
    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 Catawba View Post
    But no problem with the president leading the nation into an almost decade long war based on bad intel, despite all the warnings that Iraq was not a threat to the US, right..................!
    I am impressed with just how much history you are able to revise in just one sentence.

    Could you revise the Viet-nam war? This time I want us to win. All I need is just one good sentence from you.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Yet you go to the opposite extreme and assert that due to the complexity of the situation that nobody "high up" is to blame. Consider the case of the BP gulf rig or Exxon Valdez "accidents"; while clearly the corporate heads and stockholders were not at fault, for the oil spills, they were still held fully accountable.
    I do not say that at all, but I do follow the report's findings.

    Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
    Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.
    The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.
    The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.
    If a platoon of Soldiers is ambushed and destroyed by the enemy, you don't get the General in front of you and ask where he physically was and what he was doing while that was happening, you don't ask him why he didn't direct air support or take specific actions while this ambush was happening. Everyone knows and understands that there are several layers of command between that platoon and the general who's job it is to handle those kinds of things.

    Likewise with Obama, its stupid to ask where he was and what was he doing, the system is designed to act without intervention by the President because you simply can't wait that long for him to personally be managing affairs nor is is effective at all from the since of time management and his own personal expertise. He has layers and layers of command beneath for very important reasons that should be obvious. What can be asked in regards to Libya are decisions that are directly related to decision making at the Presidential level. Was assisting the Libyan rebels a good idea? Or, "Why did we decide upon having a consulate in Benghazi, and what were our goals there." Those last two questions are also handled heavily by the Secretary of State mostly anyway, but I would say its fair to ask Obama what kind of accountability he keeps in house.

    Questions about tactical decision making on the ground are NOT the President's lane and we don't want them to be in his lane.

    Just glancing through this report you can come up with several questions that are relevant, things it mentions that you would want to know more about and would be in the Secretary of State's purview to oversee, gather information on, and correct.

    Better PDF version:

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    and you have the opposite problem.

    I have great interest in what actually happened. The president said he would have a thorough investigation so he could find out what he did. Well? What did he do?

    Who, in your opinion, can order cross border military operations?
    No the President did not say he'd launch an investigation into what he himself did, and as for the investigation, I linked it so there are your answers.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    G.H. Bush went to war against Iraq with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.

    G.W. Bush went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.

    Bush's Generals warned Bush, we can defeat the Iraqi military and accomplish the mission of "regime change" but we have to have 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq after the mission is accomplished.

    Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld says "You go to war with what you got."

    Saddam Hussein believes G.W. Bush is bluffing, who would invade Iraq with only 200,000 troops ?

    Bush wasn't bluffing.

    Read the F.B.I. interrogation of Saddam Hussein and get back to me. -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI

    BTW: I knew it had nothing to do with WMD's or even oil. I knew back in 2001 that there was going to be a regime change in Iraq. Bush was going to take care of the problem that Clinton couldn't accomplish in eight years.
    Maybe instead of going to war with an insufficient military for the task, and blaming someone for making it insufficient, we shouldn't have gone at all?

Page 8 of 41 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •