• 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

So where were you during the Vietnam war ?

I've been involved in a thirty year research project, not on the strategy or tactics or the mistakes made during the Vietnam war but who was responsible for getting America involved in a shooting war in the Republic of Vietnam. All I need just one more big dump by the CIA, the last one being in 2006.

I have about a dozen boxes of research material, interviews, declassified records, interviews of Gen. Giap all in French. Lets just say it wasn't Eisenhower or LBJ. Many of those who were responsible would become some of the biggest anti war activist during the late 60's and early 70's.

Apache, FYI I was not even born when the Vietnam war was going on.

And in case you don't know. The whole "political enemy at home stabing the army in the back" arguement was used by the nazi's in their propaganda to make the people of Germany believe that it was Jewish politicans that betrayed the army.
 
Haha, it's funny you say that. I was walking downstairs to get a beer and I was just thinking the same thing. I am looking forward to the future, because, try as they might, even the republicans cannot stop some of the great infrastructure and technological advances that are headed our way.

Almost all of those technological advancements were directly from defense spending and the military industrial complex. The Internet was created for the U.S. Air Force so their C&CC could communicate with it's ICBM missile silos during a nuclear war. The profits that were being made by the defense industry during the Vietnam War was being diverted to the R&D of the internet. Cell phones, cordless drill, those batteries found in a Chevy Volt, tubeless tires, the Boeing 707, 747, satellite television, GPS, lithium batteries, and the list is long, just look around you.

If the liberal Democrats would have prevailed in Congress back in the 60's, 70's and 80's none of these technical advances would have never happened.
 
Apache, FYI I was not even born when the Vietnam war was going on.

And in case you don't know. The whole "political enemy at home stabing the army in the back" arguement was used by the nazi's in their propaganda to make the people of Germany believe that it was Jewish politicans that betrayed the army.

I thought it was the Jewish bankers.

Remember that e-mail I sent you the other day ? Next year the big British dump begins. The next five years may rewrite history. The British government is worried.

In my opinion, the First World War was one of the stupidest wars ever fought. But it did accomplish one thing, it ended the European aristocratic society.

But wouldn't you agree that the Second World War in Europe was just a continuation of the First World War ?
 
Almost all of those technological advancements were directly from defense spending and the military industrial complex. The Internet was created for the U.S. Air Force so their C&CC could communicate with it's ICBM missile silos during a nuclear war. The profits that were being made by the defense industry during the Vietnam War was being diverted to the R&D of the internet. Cell phones, cordless drill, those batteries found in a Chevy Volt, tubeless tires, the Boeing 707, 747, satellite television, GPS, lithium batteries, and the list is long, just look around you.

If the liberal Democrats would have prevailed in Congress back in the 60's, 70's and 80's none of these technical advances would have never happened.

Yes, the military has helped innovate many utile things. Great point. Now back to the discussion...
 
Did you see that thread down below on the worse cars ever made ?
No. Did you read the comments below the article I posted? Everyone who drives a Chevy Volt seems to love them and say they're fun to drive. Of course they also say there's some minor kinks but everyone seems to understand that it's a fairly new technology and if given a chance can only get better as time goes on. I wish I'd thought about leasing one, before I bought the clunker I have now.
 
The Navy likes the green fuel. It was an experiment to see if biofuels would operate the war planes and ships in order to help make the US less dependent on foreign oil for our national security. The experiment worked and now they plan to start helping private industry create the fuel so by the end of the decade the green fuel cost will be competitive with oil. I like people who can think ahead.
QUOTE]

The Navy don't like green fuel. Those in the Navy who are defending spending $26 per gallon for fuel are just saying what they have been ordered to say. You should know how the military works. Every once in awhile you'll come across a Gen. Billy Mitchel, Chesty Puller, Douglas MacArthur, McCHrystal who have a pair and are willing to tell the truth on record.
 
Almost all of those technological advancements were directly from defense spending and the military industrial complex. The Internet was created for the U.S. Air Force so their C&CC could communicate with it's ICBM missile silos during a nuclear war. The profits that were being made by the defense industry during the Vietnam War was being diverted to the R&D of the internet. Cell phones, cordless drill, those batteries found in a Chevy Volt, tubeless tires, the Boeing 707, 747, satellite television, GPS, lithium batteries, and the list is long, just look around you.

If the liberal Democrats would have prevailed in Congress back in the 60's, 70's and 80's none of these technical advances would have never happened.
Thanks for backing up my point, Apacherat. But just so you know, the Democrats of 60's and 70's became the NeoCons of the 1980's to present....which according to your logic, helps to explain why the GOP are kicking and screaming as we progress into the new millenium.
 
The Navy don't like green fuel. Those in the Navy who are defending spending $26 per gallon for fuel are just saying what they have been ordered to say. You should know how the military works. Every once in awhile you'll come across a Gen. Billy Mitchel, Chesty Puller, Douglas MacArthur, McCHrystal who have a pair and are willing to tell the truth on record.
But if you're a military man thinking about future defense and national security, you don't want to be dependent on your enemy for your fuel source in order to run your defense and war machines now do you? In this case, I think the military knows what they're talking about more than a few congressmen do.
 
If that is their excuse for inaction then neither is a suitable selection for the job.

They had many options open to them and they chose none of them.

In addition to aircraft carriers we have the ability to launch aircraft from land based airports (commonly called airbases). When it is important Italy is about two flying hours away.

A destroyer was nearby. Italy was nearby. Aircraft an do amazing things when we call upon them.

Earlier you referenced Sun Tzu. Was that a throw-away reference or do you understand the art of war in theory and in operation? If it was a throw-away reference you are to be forgiven. If you understand the art of war then you will recognize that conducting operations iss a means of developing situational awareness.

Intelligence is the starting point. One does not wait to do anything while waiting for better intelligence. One develops the situation through operations. One sets many options in motion, develops the situation and violently executes operations based on the information one has.

One does not abandon four Americans to be murdered because of a "lack of intelligence". One might because of a lack of will or a lack of courage or for political purposes.

Politics, of course. Obama, the One, had told us that Bin Laden was dead (is there any proof of that) and Al Qaeda was on the run. It would not do for us to know the truth. So Obama went and hid for eight hours, creating his Benghazi Massacre.

I suppose if the truth matters very little then I suppose it makes no difference.

The lie was that this attack on the consulate in Benghazi was nothing more than a protest. The lie was that there was nothing to be done. It was a very big lie and it worked. You bought it. And despite overwhelming evidence you still do.

When the truth doesn't really matter than lies are just as good as the truth.
If you like the truth so much, then why don't you try using it sometime?



".....The Pentagon had no forces that could be readily sent to Benghazi when the crisis unfolded. The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea. The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand its own force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F. Every other regional command had one at the time.....<snip>.....

The United States military’s best-trained team to extract diplomats under fire — Delta Force commandos — was half a world away, in Fort Bragg, N.C. “What this report shows is that we need a fundamental rethink of the problem,” said one senior Pentagon official who has spent considerable time examining the issue of protecting American diplomats since the attack in September. “It’s not the military’s job to protect diplomats; it’s the host government’s. But in the absence of a real government, we never asked the question, ‘So how do we do this?’ ”

But as the military budget declines, some ranking officers are wary about taking on new commitments, even ones that involve protecting Americans.

“It is not reasonable nor feasible to tether U.S. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world,” Mike Mullen, the retired admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who served as vice chairman of the independent review, said Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/u...ls-resign-following-benghazi-report.html?_r=0
 
No. Did you read the comments below the article I posted? Everyone who drives a Chevy Volt seems to love them and say they're fun to drive. Of course they also say there's some minor kinks but everyone seems to understand that it's a fairly new technology and if given a chance can only get better as time goes on. I wish I'd thought about leasing one, before I bought the clunker I have now.

I concur, eventually the hybrids and all electric cars will be perfected. It will probably be twenty or thirty years before we see it.

In 2003 / 2004 the U.S. military started to mess around with hybrid HUMMVES. The problem was in combat conditions they over heated. It may be the military industrial complex that perfects the hybrid and all electric vehicles. But no way was G.W. Bush was going to force the military to use a unperfected technology in combat where it leads to American soldiers being killed. Can't say the same with the current Cn'C.

Myself, I prefer a big gas guzzling internal combustion engine with two leaking Holley four barrel carburetors under the hood of thee thousand pounds of steel. Have to have over 425 H.P and a lot of torque. Feel sorry for today's kids, they have never been behind the wheel of a muscle car. And you have to be a technician to work on today's engines !
 
More like we were stabbed in the back by liberals back on the streets in America while we were still on the battlefields of Vietnam.
The liberals back then were also the war hawks. Johnson was the biggest war hawk of all. It wasn't conservatives vs liberals in as much as it was old vs young. The generation gap was a huge factor.

To be more historically correct, most of the demonstration against the war in Vietnam wasn't really about the war but against the draft. When the draft ended, the demonstrations died out but the war continued for for another two years.
Right because the draftees were YOUNG and right out of HS. They had their whole lives ahead of them and "no one wanted to be the last man to die in Vietnam."

There were the political left activist including the (New Left) in Congress who opposed the war in Vietnam, but they actually opposed the United States winning the war in Vietnam.

Should be noted that when the last American combat forces departed the RVN in 1973, every province with in the RVN was left in control of ARVAN forces. They would lose control of Vietnam when the Democrats in Congress in 1975 cut off all funding to South Vietnam. That's when NVA tanks rolled across the DMZ and it's pretty hard to stop an invading army when ARVAN troops were having their ammunition rationed at three rounds per day.
The Pentagon Papers, Kent State and My Lai finally turned the public against the war. No doubt the way the US withdrew and the last flights out of Hanoi left an indelible mark on a lot of people, especially conservatives. I suspect they wanted to prove they could do it right the second time with Iraq. But the end results were same. Thats twice in my lifetime that our country has been misled into war. I will never doubt the power of propaganda to mislead a country into war again.
 
Thanks for backing up my point, Apacherat. But just so you know, the Democrats of 60's and 70's became the NeoCons of the 1980's to present....which according to your logic, helps to explain why the GOP are kicking and screaming as we progress into the new millenium.

The original liberals of the Democrat Party left the Democrat Party starting in the Vietnam War and throughout the 1970's and many, not all but most came under the GOP tent and they would be called neoconservatives. Ronald Reagan surrounded himself with many liberals known as neoconservatives.

Those from the fringe of the radical left known as "The New Left" back in the late 60's and early 70's would hide under the label as liberals. When they dirtied that label they would hide under the label of progressives.

When the fringe of the radical left started to gain control of the Democrat Party during the late 60's and early 70's they wanted to surrender and refuse to fight the Cold War and stop Communist expansion throughout the world.

There was one "New Left" Congressman who actually wanted Gen. Westmoreland to surrender on the battlefield to Gen. Giap.

The original liberals of the Democrat Party during the 1940's, 50's, 60's were anti Communist. And the neo-cons just like most liberals support nation building while most conservatives don't support nation building. Conservatives have always been some what isolationist. America NUMBER ONE. Nationalism. Where as the neoconservative had no problem using our military for nation building.

The neoconservative movement in America was born when the fringe of the radical left (internationalist socialist) gained control of the Democrat Party. By 1976 they controlled the Democrat Party. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't deal with his own political Party.
 
I concur, eventually the hybrids and all electric cars will be perfected. It will probably be twenty or thirty years before we see it.

In 2003 / 2004 the U.S. military started to mess around with hybrid HUMMVES. The problem was in combat conditions they over heated. It may be the military industrial complex that perfects the hybrid and all electric vehicles. But no way was G.W. Bush was going to force the military to use a unperfected technology in combat where it leads to American soldiers being killed. Can't say the same with the current Cn'C.
Right, too bad the Humvees weren't armored and the troops didn't have flack jackets and the water caused cancer, but hey, getting shot at is fun. Rumsfeld was trying to make a leaner, meaner military but instead he made it the war longer and got a lot of troops killed and maimed from his incompetence and negligence. It didn't have to be that way.

"You don't go to war with the military you wish you had, you go with the one you have." - Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

Myself, I prefer a big gas guzzling internal combustion engine with two leaking Holley four barrel carburetors under the hood of thee thousand pounds of steel. Have to have over 425 H.P and a lot of torque. Feel sorry for today's kids, they have never been behind the wheel of a muscle car. And you have to be a technician to work on today's engines !
"Muscle cars", now that brings back a few memories. lol
 
Incoming.....
grenade_toss-animated.gif


White House to give senators Benghazi documents.....

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House has agreed to give the Senate Intelligence Committee documents related to the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, a congressional aide said Friday.

Republicans had demanded the documents as a condition of voting on the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA director.

The documents include emails between top national security officials showing the debate within the administration over how to describe the attack and other documents the committee had been asking for, the aide said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Republicans accused the administration of an election-year cover-up of an act of terrorism and repeatedly pressed for more information about the attack. An independent review that faulted the State Department and led to four employees being relieved of their duties failed to placate GOP lawmakers. They demanded testimony from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who spent more than five hours before two congressional panels, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey about the military's response to the attack.....snip~

White House to give senators Benghazi documents

Looks like we may have some more answers course if they can get those emails without Team Obama deleting anything.....that is.

Btw would anyone know what the Travel time from Washington DC to Los Angeles is?
 
Apache, FYI I was not even born when the Vietnam war was going on.

And in case you don't know. The whole "political enemy at home stabing the army in the back" arguement was used by the nazi's in their propaganda to make the people of Germany believe that it was Jewish politicans that betrayed the army.

So whoever is critical of Liberals is a Nazi?

More leftist rubbish.
 
No. Did you read the comments below the article I posted? Everyone who drives a Chevy Volt seems to love them and say they're fun to drive. Of course they also say there's some minor kinks but everyone seems to understand that it's a fairly new technology and if given a chance can only get better as time goes on. I wish I'd thought about leasing one, before I bought the clunker I have now.

What are you getting for a used Chevy volt these days?
 
What are you getting for a used Chevy volt these days?

Heya Grant Check this out.....from a Navy Seal he had blogged on Newsmax.

Only President Can Give ‘Cross-Border Authority’.....

The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut.

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.


We can be 100% certain that cross-border authority was never given. How do I know this? Because if CBA was granted and the rescue mission execute orders were handed down, irrefutable records exist today in at least a dozen involved component commands, and probably many more. No general or admiral will risk being hung out to dry for undertaking a mission-gone-wrong that the POTUS later disavows ordering, and instead blames on “loose cannons” or “rogue officers” exceeding their authority. No general or admiral will order U.S. armed forces to cross an international border on a hostile mission unless and until he is certain that the National Command Authority, in the person of the POTUS and his chain of command, has clearly and explicitly given that order: verbally at the outset, but thereafter in written orders and official messages. If they exist, they could be produced today.

When it comes to granting cross-border authority, there are no presidential mumblings or musings to paraphrase or decipher. If you hear confusion over parsed statements given as an excuse for Benghazi, then you are hearing lies. I am sure that hundreds of active-duty military officers know all about the Benghazi execute orders (or the lack thereof), and I am impatiently waiting for one of them to come forward to risk his career and pension as a whistleblower.

Leon Panetta is falling on his sword for President Obama with his absurd-on-its-face, “the U.S. military doesn’t do risky things”-defense of his shameful no-rescue policy. Panetta is utterly destroying his reputation. General Dempsey joins Panetta on the same sword with his tacit agreement by silence. But why? How far does loyalty extend when it comes to covering up gross dereliction of duty by the president?

General Petraeus, however, has indirectly blown the whistle. He was probably “used” in some way early in the cover-up with the purported CIA intel link to the Mohammed video, and now he feels burned. So he conclusively said via his public affairs officer that the stand-down order did not come from the CIA. Well — what outranks the CIA? Only the national security team at the White House. That means President Obama, and nobody else. Petraeus is naming Obama without naming him. If that is not quite as courageous as blowing a whistle, it is far better than the disgraceful behavior of Panetta and Dempsey.

We do not know the facts for certain, but we do know that the rescue mission stand-down issue revolves around the granting or withholding of cross-border authority, which belongs only to President Obama. More than one hundred gung-ho Force Recon Marines were waiting on the tarmac in Sigonella, just two hours away for the launch order that never came.....snip~

PJ Media » Benghazi’s Smoking Gun? Only President Can Give
 
I'm not moving the goalposts. You are avoiding the question. So, again, what precisely are your expectations? What specific actions do you believe the President should have taken. I'm sick of seeing people whine about it without saying specifically what they think he should have done. Aside from planting his ass in a chair in the Situation room; what specific actions do you think he should have taken?

Oh, I think planting his ass in the Situation Room would've been a mighty fine start. Great photo op too.

President Obama doesn't appear to have done anything. Secretary of State Clinton appears to have done nothing. Whatever the right thing to have done is, they didn't do it.

If State is so big and complicated that what the Ambassador was saying months before was "lost," then somebody wasn't doing her job. Libya requires attention.

Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List - Yahoo! News

At best, in my opinion, this is, at the least, gross incompetence and a craven attempt to cover it up because of the upcoming election. And because he's been mentioned earlier in this thread and referred to as a "doddering old man," I think a President McCain would have been hands-on and upfront with the American people.
 
If nothing else, those on the right are predictable. Someone beats you twice, set fire to them in a witch hunt.
 
Oh, I think planting his ass in the Situation Room would've been a mighty fine start. Great photo op too.

President Obama doesn't appear to have done anything. Secretary of State Clinton appears to have done nothing. Whatever the right thing to have done is, they didn't do it.

If State is so big and complicated that what the Ambassador was saying months before was "lost," then somebody wasn't doing her job. Libya requires attention.

Report: Ambassador Stevens Said He Was on an Al-Qaeda Hit List - Yahoo! News

At best, in my opinion, this is, at the least, gross incompetence and a craven attempt to cover it up because of the upcoming election. And because he's been mentioned earlier in this thread and referred to as a "doddering old man," I think a President McCain would have been hands-on and upfront with the American people.

This man knows a great deal of the subject and is worth a read. The Rape of Christopher Stevens | Raymond Ibrahim

[url]http://www.raymondibrahim.com/

[/URL]
 
Last edited:
Only President Can Give ‘Cross-Border Authority’.....The Benghazi debacle boils down to a single key factor — the granting or withholding of “cross-border authority.” This opinion is informed by my experience as a Navy SEAL officer who took a NavSpecWar Detachment to Beirut. Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission. That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

Lets examine the Benghazi timeline of events:

9:42PM: Consulate comes under attack. Consulate staff made urgent phone calls the the JSOC unit in Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington. Attempts to reach the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli failed twice because he ignored the calls but finally answered on the third attempt. The Regional Security Office staff place urgent call to the Global Response Staff at the CIA Annex in Benghazi just one mile away and another call to the embassy in Tripoli.

10:05PM: The Global Response Staff at the CIA Annex in Benghazi conclude their debate on whether or not to provide assistance. They head for the consulate and the JSOC unit in Tripoli, accompanied by a second CIA element, make their way to Benghazi.

10:30PM: Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey are notified of the attack.

11:00PM: The President is notified. A drone is ordered to fly over Benghazi to determine precisely what is happening and the size and scope of the attacking force.

11:10PM: The drone arrives and begins transmitting a video feed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacts CIA Director David Petraeus to coordinate.

11:30PM: The attack on the consulate is over and Ambassador Stevens is dead. The GRS unit from the CIA annex down the road has rescued the survivors and makes its way back to the CIA annex under heavy fire.

11:50PM: The CIA element arrives at the annex in Benghazi.

12:00AM: Marine anti-terrorist teams in Spain are ordered to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. JSOC units in Croatia and the United States are ordered to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

1:30AM: The JSOC unit and CIA element from Tripoli finally arrive in Benghazi.

5:15AM: The CIA annex in Benghazi comes under attack.

6:05AM: Aircraft in Germany are ordered to prepare for deployment to evacuate the CIA Annex in Benghazi.

7:40AM: Evacuations begin and take place for the next 12 hours.

7:57PM: The JSOC unit from Croatia finally arrives in Italy.

8:56PM: One of the Marine anti-terrorist teams from Spain finally arrives in Tripoli.

9:28PM: The JSOC unit from the United States finally arrives in Italy.


Looks like your cross border authority was granted. Obviously our military suffers from serious logistical issues among other things. (surprise) The kinds of questions people should really be asking are things like: Why did it take the Marines 21 hours to move from Spain to Libya after they'd been given orders to do so? The few. The proud. The agonizingly slow?
 
Last edited:
How about this: stop talking in terms of being "stabbed in the back" or "betrayed by friends at home"

I never said any of that. What is it with you guys???

But, while American men were fighting and dying in Vietnam, is that not the truth? You can debate it if you want.
 
So? The war hawks didn't shrivel up and die after the end of Vietnam. They got tired of Carter's passive ways and found a new schmuck they could manipulate in Reagan.


The NeoCons. All the people at AEI and Heritage and Irving and Bill Kristol, Jean Kirkpatric, James Woolsey, Richard Perle, Scooter Libbey, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Lynn Cheney, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, John R. Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Daniel Bell, Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, .....

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil." - Senator Chuck Hagel

Vietnam was ended by protests from both sides. "Hell no, we won't go."

Oh, my word. This became a mess. When discussing who did what and when, always be careful with who you include in any myriad of intellectual and political developments. Some of those individuals had incredibly limited roles in government at the time, some had no roles at all, and others would be mystified at being connected with the others.

Lynne Cheney is problematic (as is her husband) as she was a long-time conservative, had little of the Jackson crowd's precarious political position problem, and so forth. However, she was allied with much of the academic/intellectual wing of neoconservatism, as this could be found in the academic culture war episodes of the late 1980s through the mid-1990s. I'm amused that you want to include Moynihan in that group, considering his views on Reagan's administration and his lack of interest in many operations and his death just around the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (without much public comment, except in private to criticize the administration's war intervention in Iraq)...or Daniel Bell, considering...well, everything. I mean, good God. You put Bell with Michael Ledeen or Abrams?

You just read something about neoconservatism, posted it all and went on a rant again without thinking carefully, huh?

The original liberals of the Democrat Party during the 1940's, 50's, 60's were anti Communist. And the neo-cons just like most liberals support nation building while most conservatives don't support nation building. Conservatives have always been some what isolationist. America NUMBER ONE. Nationalism. Where as the neoconservative had no problem using our military for nation building.

The neoconservative movement in America was born when the fringe of the radical left (internationalist socialist) gained control of the Democrat Party. By 1976 they controlled the Democrat Party. Even Jimmy Carter couldn't deal with his own political Party.


First off, many of the first generation of foreign policy neoconservatives were not favoring nation-building or the belief that we needed to promote democracy. There's a giant qualitative difference between the initial Scoop Jackson Democrat crowd and the subsequent Neo-Reaganite concept.
 
Last edited:
If nothing else, those on the right are predictable. Someone beats you twice, set fire to them in a witch hunt.

Course those 2 Committees finding Gross negligence tends to put a wrinkle into that scenario. Also is the down play of what took place in Egypt and then those 23 Muslim Countries that Rose up due to Social media and an Alleged Holy-man making the call.
 
Back
Top Bottom