Page 9 of 41 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 405

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

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

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

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    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.
    You better hope so, otherwise you're going to need to steal a suitcase.

  2. #82
    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
    I do not say that at all, but I do follow the report's findings.

    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
    I don't know about you but long ago when I had some responsibilities for surveillance of the border between Western Germany and Czechoslovakia a platoon leader attacking across that border, if he survived, would have been out of a job.

    Who, in your opinion, can direct a cross-border operation?

    Americans were being murdered and the president knew it. Why didn't he exercise any leadership whatsoever? Why didn't he bring in the SECSTATE since he already had the SECDEF with him? Where was the CJCS? What options was he asked about?

    There are plenty of people who can move forces in preparation. Who, in your opinion, could have ordered the nearest fighter aircraft on strip alert to fly to Benghazi? Who, in your opinion should have been the one to make it all happen if it was not the One?

    Why is the president missing in action when something important is happening?

    This was not a dinner meal gone horribly wrong. This was an attack by Al Qaeda on US people and property.

  3. #83
    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
    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
    He stonewalled. He lied. He covered up. And you are his helper. We still don't know what he did or where he was.

  4. #84
    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 Wiseone View Post
    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?
    In hindsight, the mission of regime change was accomplished and during the second war in Iraq, the Iraq Insurrection, we did kill 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters on the battlefield.

    I'm not a liberal or a neoconservative so I'm really not in to nation building. I would have fought the war the old fashion way. Go in, kick butt and as soon as Saddam was gone, I would do the same, get out of Dodge.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    07-25-13 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,328

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

    Despite the the volume having been really turned up on this "story" by the Rightwing squawkmachine, it still has no more legs than Gibson Guitars.....................

  6. #86
    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 don't know about you but long ago when I had some responsibilities for surveillance of the border between Western Germany and Czechoslovakia a platoon leader attacking across that border, if he survived, would have been out of a job.

    Who, in your opinion, can direct a cross-border operation?

    Americans were being murdered and the president knew it. Why didn't he exercise any leadership whatsoever? Why didn't he bring in the SECSTATE since he already had the SECDEF with him? Where was the CJCS? What options was he asked about?

    There are plenty of people who can move forces in preparation. Who, in your opinion, could have ordered the nearest fighter aircraft on strip alert to fly to Benghazi? Who, in your opinion should have been the one to make it all happen if it was not the One?

    Why is the president missing in action when something important is happening?

    This was not a dinner meal gone horribly wrong. This was an attack by Al Qaeda on US people and property.
    Yes that PL would have been, and not his General, exactly my point. We recognize the many layers of command and the responsibilities each layer has, we may relieve his company commander and perhaps his BN commander if we really want to send a message but no one is going to fire the General for a dumb LT, because we expect people between that General and LT to have some responsibility.

    As for cross border operations, well obviously the President is not the only one who can direct those kinds of actions. Are you of the opinion that the only person who could order relief to into Benghazi and across international borders was Obama himself? I couldn't say who should be the the guy with the approving authority, but I know it should be the President for a situation like this and was not the President for this situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    He stonewalled. He lied. He covered up. And you are his helper. We still don't know what he did or where he was.
    Source?

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    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
    Is McCain is losing it............


  8. #88
    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 Bonzai View Post
    Despite the the volume having been really turned up on this "story" by the Rightwing squawkmachine, it still has no more legs than Gibson Guitars.....................
    This Gibson has legs.

    GibsonVPoster01_tn.jpg

  9. #89
    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 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.
    The point being that almost 10,000 boots didn't come back home with live soldiers in them unnecessarily, and that was completely due to bad intelligence. And McCain still defends the invasion of iraq based on bad intelligence.
    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

  10. #90
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,474

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

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    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.

    <snip>....On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,....<snip>....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.
    ....<snip>....."

    Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
    Rushing to war based on nothing but lies and false information is nothing to be proud of.


    Man, that Chalabi and the INC sure did sucker a lot of people....


    January 1996: CIA Ends Its Relationship with Chalabi
    The CIA—concerned about Chalabi’s contacts with Iran and convinced that he is not capable of delivering on his promises—severs its ties with him and the Iraqi National Congress. [ABC, 2/7/1998; New Yorker, 6/7/2004; Christian Science Monitor, 6/15/2004] Former CIA base chief Robert Baer recalls in 2006 that “[t]he quality” of the INC’s intelligence “was very bad. There was a feeling that Chalabi was prepping defectors. We had no systematic way to vet the information, but it was obvious most of it was cooked.” [Mother Jones, 4/2006]

    1997-1998: Ahmed Chalabi Befriends Neoconservatives, Advocates Overthrow of Iraqi Government
    According to Middle East expert Judith Kipper, around this time, Ahmed Chalabi makes “a deliberate decision to turn to the right,” having realized that conservatives are more likely than liberals to support his plan to use force to topple Saddam Hussein’s government. Chalabi’s aide, Francis Brooke, later explains to the New Yorker: “We thought very carefully about this, and realized there were only a couple of hundred people” in Washington capable of influencing US policy toward Iraq. He also attends social functions with Richard Perle, whom he met in 1985 (see 1985) and who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dick Cheney, the CEO of Halliburton.

    According to Brooke, “from the beginning, Cheney was in philosophical agreement with this plan. Cheney has said, ‘Very seldom in life do you get a chance to fix something that went wrong.’” Paul Wolfowitz is said to be enamored with Chalabi. According to an American friend of Chalabi, “Chalabi really charmed him. He told me they are both intellectuals. Paul is a bit of a dreamer.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004] He also becomes friends with L. Marc Zell and Douglas Feith of the Washington-Tel Aviv law, Feith and Zell. [Salon, 5/5/2004]

    Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brooke find allies in the US Senate’s Republican leadership.
    They provide the Republicans with details about the events surrounding the INC-CIA’s 1995 failed plot against Saddam Hussein (see March 1995) and Iraq’s subsequent incursion into Kurdish territory (see August 1996) which the Republican senators use against the Clinton White House and the CIA. “Clinton gave us a huge opportunity,” Brooke later recalls. “We took a Republican Congress and pitted it against a Democratic White House. We really hurt and embarrassed the president.” The Republican leadership in Congress, he acknowledges, “didn’t care that much about the ammunition. They just wanted to beat up the president.” Senior Republican senators, according to Brooke, are “very receptive, right away” to Chalabi and Brooke’s information, and Chalabi is soon on a first-name basis with 30 members of Congress, including senators Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Newt Gingrich. [Alternet, 5/21/2004; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]

    President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (ILA) into law. The act, which passed with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, was written by Trent Lott (R-MS) and other Republicans with significant input from Ahmed Chalabi and his aide, Francis Brooke. [US Congress, 10/31/1998 ; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]

    Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress


    Hey, looky here, McCain says he was a critic of the war....for four years...and if you believe that I got a bridge in Alaska to sell ya....


    CHETRY: It seems you’ve been painted as being a huge supporter of the president’s Iraq strategy. Is that an inaccurate portrayal?

    MCCAIN: It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.

    But I do believe that this general, who will report back in the middle of September, as you know, and this strategy is succeeding...."

    McCain: 'I Was The Greatest Critic' Of The Iraq War Over The Last Four Years | ThinkProgress


    I am so glad he wasn't elected president or we'd still be quagmired in Iraq.
    Last edited by Moot; 02-19-13 at 02:27 AM.

Page 9 of 41 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •