• 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!

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....................
 
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.


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?
 
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............

McCainTortureRollingStone0708.jpg
 
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.
 
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:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
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.

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf


Indulge yourself, pay attention to the Reagan and Clinton years. Serving in the military is a serious and dangerous job even during peace time. As you'll notice, more members serving in the U.S. military were killed during the first two years of the Reagan administration than any two years in Iraq and we weren't even fighting a shooting war back then.

In fact check out the demographics of the Vietnam War and you'll notice that the liberal activist were lying as usual.
 
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf


Indulge yourself, pay attention to the Reagan and Clinton years. Serving in the military is a serious and dangerous job even during peace time. As you'll notice, more members serving in the U.S. military were killed during the first two years of the Reagan administration than any two years in Iraq and we weren't even fighting a shooting war back then.

In fact check out the demographics of the Vietnam War and you'll notice that the liberal activist were lying as usual.



4 were killed unnecessarily in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 killed unnecessarily in Iraq.
 
4 were killed unnecessarily in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 killed unnecessarily in Iraq.

The 4 accomplished nothing. The 5k brought human rights and democracy to Iraq.
 
The 4 accomplished nothing. The 5k brought human rights and democracy to Iraq.

You're making it out to be black and white. The 4 individuals in Benghazi were doing a lot to try and help the new government get on its feet in their own way, they died firstly because they went to a dangerous place to accomplish a mission, despite any failures by their chain of command the primary reason they were killed was because people wanted to kill them. Likewise many in Iraq died because people wanted to kill them and their chain of command could have done more to keep them alive. You make it sound as if there were no mistakes in Iraq and Benghazi was nothing but mistake.

Also you're statement that Benghazi, and I take the Libya mission as a whole in that, is for nothing but in reality it has the same overall purpose as Iraq, to bring democracy and a stable friendly government to a country. Neither Iraq nor Libya is all the way there, and it may be decades before we can safely say exactly what all the effects of our respective actions in these two countries are. But to make it sound as if Libya is accomplishing nothing, and everything with Iraq is already said and done is just being willfully ignorant.

For example in 1972 one could say that the Vietnam War accomplished the safety and security of South Vietnam. But in 1975, three years later, all you could say the US got out of the Vietnam War was a South Vietnam that lasted 3 years. Two vastly different statements and what it took for the effect of our action to truly be seen and come to fruition was time. Of course those in 1972 may have been able to see the writing on the wall or see the potential risks of things to come which eventually did come three years later, just like today many people can see the risks of potentially bad things that may come in Iraq. So like I said, it will take time to truly see what the full meaning of our War in Iraq truly was. But one thing we know without a doubt right now is not that Iraq is a place of human rights and democracy, but that there were no WMDs, we know for a fact right now that our of primary reasons to go to war was completely empty.
 
Last edited:
You're making it out to be black and white.

Cat is making it out to be the same thing. We dunno what was going on in Beng.
 
4 were killed unnecessarily in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 killed unnecessarily in Iraq.

You have a way with numbers, did you attend LAUSD ?

7,500 members of the military died during the Clinton administration.

Actually that's a low number because during the Clinton administration they were dumbing down the training in the military like putting safety nets under the "confidence" obstacle courses. Yep, you can gain a lot of confidence if you know there's a safety net below you.
 
For example in 1972 one could say that the Vietnam War accomplished the safety and security of South Vietnam. But in 1975, three years later, all you could say the US got out of the Vietnam War was a South Vietnam that lasted 3 years. Two vastly different statements and what it took for the effect of our action to truly be seen and come to fruition was time. Of course those in 1972 may have been able to see the writing on the wall or see the potential risks of things to come which eventually did come three years later, just like today many people can see the risks of potentially bad things that may come in Iraq. So like I said, it will take time to truly see what the full meaning of our War in Iraq truly was. But one thing we know without a doubt right now is not that Iraq is a place of human rights and democracy, but that there were no WMDs, we know for a fact right now that our of primary reasons to go to war was completely empty.

It will certainly take time. People declaring failure in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghan and elsewhere are a bit early in my opinion. One note: Vietnam still established US intent and capacity to intervene militarily in SE Asia.
 
It will certainly take time. People declaring failure in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghan and elsewhere are a bit early in my opinion. One note: Vietnam still established US intent and capacity to intervene militarily in SE Asia.

No one doubted our capacity to do it, but what was doubted was our capacity to do it afterwards. Think about it, the United States had the political will to go to Vietnam for over a decade, but after the Vietnam War do you think we had the will, even though we still had the physical capacity ie ships, planes, troops, etc, to do it again?

Likewise, yes Iraq proved that we had the military capability to invade a Middle Eastern country, but there was no doubt of that before hand. Now after Iraq, do you really think the United States is going to go back into another Middle Eastern country so soon after that experience? Hell no. In regards to other Middle Eastern countries, all Iraq did was define a window of opportunity to act out a little bit more than they normally would because they know the United States is completely unwilling to invade their country and have a repeat of Iraq. They didn't need a "show of force" everyone knows that the US has the best technology, a **** ton of troops, tanks, ships, planes, etc, there was never any doubt of that.

If I was an enemy of the United States or a hostile country I would know that I couldn't defeat them so instead of trying to do I'd look for places where they were unwilling to accept the cost it would take to remove me from power. That is why I know if I was Iran I'd see my population and country, both bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, which terrain just as ugly and unforgiving, and know that for the United States to remove me from power they'd have to spend a hell of a lot of blood and money to do and the US knows that too, and most importantly I know and the US knows that the United States is not willing to pay that cost at this time. Why? Because Iraq. And now I know its the perfect time to do something like build a nuclear bomb, not openly obviously, but with enough fog so that while they may suspect it will never be enough of a suspicion to get them to rethink that invasion cost/benefit analysis.

That's how the clever enemy would do it.
 
It's one thing for "everyone to believe" and another for the US to actually do it.

Removing the Iranian Regime will not be very difficult and nothing to do with rugged terrain. There is far greater opposition to the government in Iran than there was in Iraq, and social capital still exists there.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom