• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

jmotivator said:
It's not a great leap to conclude that the presidency would be much more powerful without Congress. Presidents have joked about this often when pressed for why they haven't done more. Only Nixon and Obama have shown an actual willingness to do something about that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure presidents have jokingly (and not so jokingly) said all kinds of things in private! Bush's overt comments routinely were on display for all to see what he wished for, and worked for. John Yoo's twisting of the letter and intent of the law is one example, Bush's strong arming of the AG when he was quite ill in the hospital, is another and his White Houses outing of a CIA agent is another, and there's more. Presidents, when not held STRICTLY accountable, primarily by their base and core supporters when they over reach, ensures more of the same. I'm glad to see your by partisan criticism of presidents though.
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say it made it right, only expected. I also think pointing to changes or growth in excesses, and new areas of overreach would be more fruitful. Otherwise we're left with they are all evil and suck. At some point we have to say this one went beyond the others, and this one was in norm. With those in the norm, we focus on changing the authority and not saying the person is bad. It's the system that allows it.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, if we're going for the lesser of two evils, sure. But if we want it right, then partisans have got to love, and be, Americans first, and democrats and republicans second. (Or third or whatever)
 
Montecresto said:
I'm sure presidents have jokingly (and not so jokingly) said all kinds of things in private! Bush's overt comments routinely were on display for all to see what he wished for, and worked for. John Yoo's twisting of the letter and intent of the law is one example, Bush's strong arming of the AG when he was quite ill in the hospital, is another and his White Houses outing of a CIA agent is another, and there's more. Presidents, when not held STRICTLY accountable, primarily by their base and core supporters when they over reach, ensures more of the same. I'm glad to see your by partisan criticism of presidents though.
Click to expand...

While I am not interested in rehashing all of these again, I will leave you with this regarding one of your debatable claims:

End of an Affair - The Washington Post

Final Paragraph: "Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

Few people followed that story long enough to get the actual truth of it and therefor many remain ignorant to the final conclusions. It didn't help that the Washington Post spent a year flooding their front page with the false accusations, and one short op-ed at the end of the A section retracting all of it.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
While I am not interested in rehashing all of these again, I will leave you with this regarding one of your debatable claims:

End of an Affair - The Washington Post

Final Paragraph: "Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

Few people followed that story long enough to get the actual truth of it and therefor many remain ignorant to the final conclusions. It didn't help that the Washington Post spent a year flooding their front page with the false accusations, and one short op-ed at the end of the A section retracting all of it.
Click to expand...

Don't know the source of your bolded. But that too is debatable. Bush claimed Saddam was purchasing the yellow cake from Niger, Wilson was sent to investigate the claim. Found it to be false reported back to the White House as such, and was then appalled when Bush further made the claim in his SOTU address. So he called him out in the paper. Which of course pissed the White house off, and prompted the outing of Plame. If you think that some how it was Plame and Wilson's decision that Wilson would be the one to go investigate, then you should think again. That's not how the State Dept. works. Scooter Libby did time for the crime, its absurd to blame Wilson for that.
 
Montecresto said:
Don't know the source of your bolded. But that too is debatable. Bush claimed Saddam was purchasing the yellow cake from Niger, Wilson was sent to investigate the claim. Found it to be false reported back to the White House as such, and was then appalled when Bush further made the claim in his SOTU address. So he called him out in the paper. Which of course pissed the White house off, and prompted the outing of Plame. If you think that some how it was Plame and Wilson's decision that Wilson would be the one to go investigate, then you should think again. That's not how the State Dept. works. Scooter Libby did time for the crime, its absurd to blame Wilson for that.
Click to expand...

The source is the link right above the quote.
 
jmotivator said:
The source is the link right above the quote.
Click to expand...

From WA PO's opinion section, ok. Well back to our beginning, you pointed to a republican and a democrat that have attempted to ignore congress, I think it's been more than that, but bi-partisan as it was, I'll give you credit for it.
 
Montecresto said:
I hear ya, if we're going for the lesser of two evils, sure. But if we want it right, then partisans have got to love, and be, Americans first, and democrats and republicans second. (Or third or whatever)
Click to expand...

While I agree with that, perfect is the enemy of the good. Perfect doesn't come over night. Absent a radical revolution, which could bring about worse, we have to seek improvement and not perfection.
 
j-mac said:
Really? Why? What threat did Libya pose us?
Click to expand...

Far more dangerous to us than Iraq. Though my previous post didn't address threat at all. Iraq was nothing. Libya was destabilizing, and if you've learn nothing from Iraq, such destabilization helps our enemies, and as such is a threat. Not one I think required our involvement, but more than Iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
While I agree with that, perfect is the enemy of the good. Perfect doesn't come over night. Absent a radical revolution, which could bring about worse, we have to seek improvement and not perfection.
Click to expand...

Come on man, who said anything about perfect, nothing's perfect, except maybe your debating skills. Improvement however will come when partisans stop looking the other way when their guy does it, or pointing out that your guys worse so my guys better.
 
Boo Radley said:
Far more dangerous to us than Iraq. Though my previous post didn't address threat at all. Iraq was nothing. Libya was destabilizing, and if you've learn nothing from Iraq, such destabilization helps our enemies, and as such is a threat. Not one I think required our involvement, but more than Iraq.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Libya was better left alone, fairly sure Qaddafi would have beaten back the NTC, as he did before. Libya is more dangerous now then under Qaadafi .
Before he was overthrown and killed, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi warned jihadists would conquer northern Africa

During the dying days of his four decade rule, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi cast an ominous prophecy. If his regime fell, jihadists would subjugate northern Africa, inflicting widespread violence and terror.

“Al-Qaeda considers all the people to be infidels,” Mr. Gaddafi declared in a speech weeks before NATO began its military intervention in Libya. “They deem all people their enemies. They know nothing but killing.”
Click to expand...
The Islamists would pour in from Afghanistan, Algeria, and Egypt, he warned, saying, “These are beasts with turbans.”
Click to expand...
Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi warned jihadists would conquer Africa | National Post

he was correct, Ansar al-Sharia is now a "global terrorist organization" under new US criteria. There were ISI fighters as part of the NTC. Libya was a bulwark against jihadist.
We threw all of that away. WE "destabilized Libya -it is dysfunctional, and milita rule, are going underground, and yet new militias (localized) cropping up. This is the very definition of "unstable"

Abu-Annas al Liby war captured living openly in Tripoli quite recently Abu Anas al Liby, al Qaeda suspect nabbed in Libya raid, arrives in U.S. - CBS News
 
Last edited:
annata said:
I don't think so. Libya was better left alone, fairly sure Qaddafi would have beaten back the NTC, as he did before. Libya is more dangerous now then under Qaadafi .


Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi warned jihadists would conquer Africa | National Post

he was correct, Ansar al-Sharia is now a "global terrorist organization" with new US under new US criteria. There were ISI fighters as part of the NSA. Libya was a bulwark against jihadist.
We threw all of that away. WE "destabilized Libya -it is dysfunctional, and milita rule, are going underground, and yet new militias (localized) cropping up. This is the very definition of "unstable"

Abu-Annas al Liby war captured living openly in Tripoli quite recently Abu Anas al Liby, al Qaeda suspect nabbed in Libya raid, arrives in U.S. - CBS News
Click to expand...

Yes, Gaddafi did indeed make that warning, but he's only a dictator, what does he know. I remember the pro-war, pro-attack Libya crowd scoffing when he made the prediction. I keep pointing out that either US foreign policy in that whole region is destabilization, or we've had two very ****ty and incompetent presidencies back to back!
 
Montecresto said:
Come on man, who said anything about perfect, nothing's perfect, except maybe your debating skills. Improvement however will come when partisans stop looking the other way when their guy does it, or pointing out that your guys worse so my guys better.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing to look the other way. Only about being honest concerning the comparison.
 
Boo Radley said:
A bribed coalition of the willing doesn't equal more support, no. It us more likely you're partisan eyes are ignoring differences.
Click to expand...

I'm not partisan dude. I have NO problem condemning both presidents for their wrongs. And I don't make a distinction between one president going to war on false pretenses and another doing the same.
 
Montecresto said:
Yes, Gaddafi did indeed make that warning, but he's only a dictator, what does he know. I remember the pro-war, pro-attack Libya crowd scoffing when he made the prediction. I keep pointing out that either US foreign policy in that whole region is destabilization, or we've had two very ****ty and incompetent presidencies back to back!
Click to expand...
agreed. Look at Iraq, ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) coming back from Syria (so called "spillover), attempting a caliphate across the borders of the 2 states.

al- Malaki is asking for Apache helicopters; and he prolly will need them, as Anwar province ( Fallujah / Ramadi) are a back and forth battle between Iraq forces, and these terrorist groups.
al-Malaki is a Shi'a, - supposed to be president, but he's more interested in keeping the sectarian strife alive, by marginalizing the Sunni's.

I'd sure like someone to tell me WT **** we accomplished in Iraq, and what we will "accomplish" in Afganistan
 
annata said:
agreed. Look at Iraq, ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) coming back from Syria (so called "spillover), attempting a caliphate across the borders of the 2 states.

al- Malaki is asking for Apache helicopters; and he prolly will need them, as Anwar province ( Fallujah / Ramadi) are a back and forth battle between Iraq forces, and these terrorist groups.
al-Malaki is a Shi'a, - supposed to be president, but he's more interested in keeping the sectarian strife alive, by marginalizing the Sunni's.

I'd sure like someone to tell me WT **** we accomplished in Iraq, and what we will "accomplish" in Afganistan
Click to expand...

Destabilization!!!!
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not arguing to look the other way. Only about being honest concerning the comparison.
Click to expand...

George Bush started the destabilization of the ME, Obama has furthered it, I see no value in pointing at one being worse than the other.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm not partisan dude. I have NO problem condemning both presidents for their wrongs. And I don't make a distinction between one president going to war on false pretenses and another doing the same.
Click to expand...

So you say. But you do ignore real differences.
 
Montecresto said:
George Bush started the destabilization of the ME, Obama has furthered it, I see no value in pointing at one being worse than the other.
Click to expand...

Unless you want to minimize the worse act in comparison.
 
Boo Radley said:
So you say. But you do ignore real differences.
Click to expand...

I haven't ignored the differences between Iraq and Libya. I just consider the similarities to be paramount. That once again the US attacked a country that had not threatened or harmed us, at all. When is that **** going to stop?
 
Montecresto said:
I haven't ignored the differences between Iraq and Libya. I just consider the similarities to be paramount. That once again the US attacked a country that had not threatened or harmed us, at all. When is that **** going to stop?
Click to expand...

I do think that should stop, god yes. But, they are not the same. Not even close.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do when you consider them all equal.
Click to expand...

Stop it Boo! I never said they were all equal. I said there are differences between the two, but in my opinion, its the similarities that should be focused on. It's your partisan eyes that just have to hold Obama at a higher esteem than Bush. I'm far more critical of Bush then you ever thought of being, but Bush is over half a decade gone!!! Obama is the man that must be stopped now. But you go ahead and keep pointing your partisan finger at Bush and see how far that gets us reigning in Obama. JFC partisan's guarantee nothing will ever get fixed.
 
Montecresto said:
Stop it Boo! I never said they were all equal. I said there are differences between the two, but in my opinion, its the similarities that should be focused on. It's your partisan eyes that just have to hold Obama at a higher esteem than Bush. I'm far more critical of Bush then you ever thought of being, but Bush is over half a decade gone!!! Obama is the man that must be stopped now. But you go ahead and keep pointing your partisan finger at Bush and see how far that gets us reigning in Obama. JFC partisan's guarantee nothing will ever get fixed.
Click to expand...

The comment was meant to encompass more than you. Others clearly use it to diminish, and they are the universial you.

Bush my be gone, but his legacy is in going. As a realist, I know that no one had the ability to make everything right again after he invaded. Any good there will be bore by the Iraq people. They and only they can turn that mistake into something positive.

Also as a realist, I know conflicts and actions I disagree with will happen. Doing them at minimal cost is better that maximum cost. Still wrong, but significantly better.

We agree both are wrong. Left at that, there us no debate between us. However, when anyone say it is the same as bush, which is where I believe this discussion started, I have to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom