2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: roadster99 on May 07, 2013, 08:14:49 PM
-
This ARTICLE (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-departure-predicted-as-congress-focuses-on-cover-up/) comes from WND. They claim to be a pretty reputable site, but they are obviously a conservative news outlet. Much of what's stated in the article is opinion, anyway. But it raises a few interesting questions.
For one, do you agree that the Benghazi coverup is worse than Watergate?
Second, do you think that the fall out will affect the administration in such a way that Obama might face some sort of catastrophic consequence?
Personally, I agree that the cover up is worse than Watergate simply because I agree with the opinion that this cover up resulted in the deaths of Americans. But I'm not so sure that what transpires, in regard to the consequences of the upcoming hearing, will be great enough to warrant any criminal charges against the likes of Obama or Hillary, or anyone in the State Department for that matter, besides Susan Rice who seems to be the scapegoat in all of this. Again, you have the separate factions of government pointing the finger at each other, much like the recent Boston bombing incident. Who's gonna get the bus driven over their back this time?
Thoughts?
-
I agree it is worse than Watergate. Human life was lost here and I would think the families of the deceased deserve the truth.
However, I don't think anyone will really be held accountable. I mean, how long ago was Fast and Furious and no one got heat for it. I think the administraion's strategy is to just avoid it until the next election. I just hope that Hilary's involvement in it ruins her chances in the next election.
I wish that more would happen but that is about all I see coming from this. Swept under the carpet again!
-
This ARTICLE (http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-departure-predicted-as-congress-focuses-on-cover-up/) comes from WND. They claim to be a pretty reputable site, but they are obviously a conservative news outlet. Much of what's stated in the article is opinion, anyway. But it raises a few interesting questions.
For one, do you agree that the Benghazi coverup is worse than Watergate?
Second, do you think that the fall out will affect the administration in such a way that Obama might face some sort of catastrophic consequence?
Personally, I agree that the cover up is worse than Watergate simply because I agree with the opinion that this cover up resulted in the deaths of Americans. But I'm not so sure that what transpires, in regard to the consequences of the upcoming hearing, will be great enough to warrant any criminal charges against the likes of Obama or Hillary, or anyone in the State Department for that matter, besides Susan Rice who seems to be the scapegoat in all of this. Again, you have the separate factions of government pointing the finger at each other, much like the recent Boston bombing incident. Who's gonna get the bus driven over their back this time?
Thoughts?
Not only did the cover-up (and lack of action) cause 4 Americans in Libya to die, but propagating the lie about the anti-Muslim video created a week-long uprising throughout the Middle East resulting in death and destruction on a large scale. American soldiers were killed that week in retaliation as well in Afghanistan.
the consequences of the cove-up have been costly. Whether intentional or not, their actions to cover their own political butts cost many lives. Willful and depraved indifference to the death and suffering they caused!
-
I agree it is worse than Watergate. Human life was lost here and I would think the families of the deceased deserve the truth.
However, I don't think anyone will really be held accountable. I mean, how long ago was Fast and Furious and no one got heat for it. I think the administraion's strategy is to just avoid it until the next election. I just hope that Hilary's involvement in it ruins her chances in the next election.
I wish that more would happen but that is about all I see coming from this. Swept under the carpet again!
This is pretty much the way I see it too...this administration seems to get away with just about anything. I think if the president was a republican, this fiasco would be viewed differently and the media would be all over this story.
-
This is pretty much the way I see it too...this administration seems to get away with just about anything. I think if the president was a republican, this fiasco would be viewed differently and the media would be all over this story.
I don't know, Bush kind of skated on the whole WMD thing in Iraq. I am thinking that Americans as a whole just have more immediate things to be concerned with on a daily basis rather than trying to get to the bottom of all the Gov't stories. When you stop and think about it, who do you believe anymore? I tend to doubt much more than I believe, especially if I did not see it myself or have firsthand knowledge.
-
I don't know, Bush kind of skated on the whole WMD thing in Iraq. I am thinking that Americans as a whole just have more immediate things to be concerned with on a daily basis rather than trying to get to the bottom of all the Gov't stories. When you stop and think about it, who do you believe anymore? I tend to doubt much more than I believe, especially if I did not see it myself or have firsthand knowledge.
Good point...just seems like Obama has a few more lives than most.
-
No Democrat in the senate will push for Obama's resignation. He has been running away from the problems of the USA so long the majority of the democratic people dont give a rats ass.
Iraq was full of WMD's but that is another cover up.
Bush is not really a conservative republican. He is a Liberal Progressive. I do not think of his as a republican.
-
Didn't Bush get all his info on WMDs from our intel agencies and that was vetted through committees as well, and then Congress voted and approved going to war? Not stating a fact, just asking...I don't remember exactly how that went down already and it got so watered down over time.
-
Didn't Bush get all his info on WMDs from our intel agencies and that was vetted through committees as well, and then Congress voted and approved going to war? Not stating a fact, just asking...I don't remember exactly how that went down already and it got so watered down over time.
You might be right on that. Just seems like no one really got called out for that. And yes, it looks like Obama has a few more lives than the average cat.
-
The story went:
We knew Saddam had chemical weapons.
He had already used them on his people.
He was refusing UN inspections even after sanctions and enforcing the no-fly zones.
When the troops finally went into Iraq, the weapons were gone.
The number one theory was they were moved and either (1) buried in the desert, or (2) trucked to Syria.
Fast forward to last week: Syria is now in possession of chemical weapons....
Was Bush's intel wrong, or just OBE?
-
It is interesting that we now have the Syria situation brewing and the whole Red Line thing.
-
I think Watergate was worse.
Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.
Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.
I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.
reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."
An hour later....
Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."
An hour later....
Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."
The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.
I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.
It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!
-
I think Watergate was worse.
Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.
Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.
I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.
reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."
An hour later....
Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."
An hour later....
Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."
The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.
I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.
It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!
The hearings today will answer many of the question we all have in regard to what the government knew and what they didn't know. I think what is most important surrounding this situation is that Obama attempted to cover up what really happened because of the political fallout that most likely would have occurred. He did need to get re-elected, you know. There are conflicting statements on whether help was requested by the soldiers on the ground in Libya. There are conflicting statements on whether there was a stand down order. The whole, "it was a protest about a video that turned violent" excuse holds no water and has been proven to be a talking point initiated by the State Dept in misguiding the people. Hillary went in front of congress and pounded the table, "what does it really matter anymore?!?" and seems to be complicit in the whole affair, claiming she knew nothing (really?). Then the accusations that Ambassador Chris Stevens was there brokering a deal to run weapons to Syria through Turkey, because it is known that Chris Stevens had dinner with the Turkish PM that very evening before the fight broke out. It has been stated that he shouldn't have been in Libya to begin with.
The accusation is, the White House/State Department knew of the exact time of when the embassy was attacked. They knew that the soldiers on the ground were requesting support. There are even reports that there was a small platoon that was ordered to evacuate. Why did they lie about knowing about the attack? Why did they try to hide behind an irrelevant YouTube video? Why did they issue a stand down order? Why are the details surrounding the reason why Chris Stevens was even there in the first place being covered up? Oh yeah! Obama was worried that this story would bring his re-election campaign down, so they initiated a cover up in the hopes that it would be forgotten by the American people long enough for him to finish his 2nd term. Then, when the truth finally comes out, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it.
Here's another article opining the political fallout: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/benghazi-revelations-today-could-obliterate-obamas-credibility-and-sink-hillarys-2016-ambitions/ (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/benghazi-revelations-today-could-obliterate-obamas-credibility-and-sink-hillarys-2016-ambitions/)
If you truly analyze what exactly it is that this administration is guilty of trying to cover up, it's huge. But I agree with most that no one will be held responsible. Not unless the American people rally against this regime and demand action. Other than that, I'd like to see how many MSM outlets actually give proper credence to this story.
-
I think Watergate was worse.
Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.
Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.
I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.
reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."
An hour later....
Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."
An hour later....
Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."
The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.
I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.
It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!
BS. We're not talking about ten minutes of confusion, or an hour of confusion. The head asshole, Mr. Soetorobama, blamed the internet video in a speech to the UN on the 25th of September!
Reporter: "What happened in Benghazi?"
Administration: "Well, keep in mind that this was only two weeks ago, on the dark side of the moon, and NASA hasn't been able to get its resources together to do a reconnaissance flight yet. It was probably that the Moose-Limbs were justifiably upset about the blaspheming of their glorious peaceful religion which demands respect, love, and tolerance from all its adherents. What difference does it make? Look over there! Weapons of war don't belong on our streets! Oh, noes! A guy the Russians warned us about has done bombed the Boston Marathon! Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive. Hope and change! Fair share, youdidn'tbuildthat, helpoutjustalittlebitmore."
What a bunch of retards. It's depressing, but not as depressing as the fact that a majority of Americans wanted four more years of it.
-
I think Watergate was worse.
Primarily because it actually happened and actually was a scandal.
Benghazi is still up in the air. I have yet to see solid evidence that it was, indeed, a scandal and a cover up. So far only the usual suspects are proclaiming this a scandal and cover up. I'm also not convinced it wasn't.
I actually blame the confusion on the &^#! 24 hour news BS that has infested our psyches.
reporter: 'What happened?!"
Official: "This was about 10 minutes ago all the way around the world. We have no idea what happened but we heard that our embassy was attacked by terrorists."
Reporter: " But its your responsibility to know!"
Official: "Yeah, it was just 10 minutes... 11 minutes now... ago. When we have more information we'll tell you."
Reporter, to camera: "So folks, you can see that this administration is incompetent..."
An hour later....
Reporter "What happened?"
Official: "There was some kind of demonstration and we think several attackers used it as a cover to attack and kill our diplomatic staff."
Reporter: "But you said they were terrorists before and didn't mention any 'demonstration.'"
Official: "This was just a little over an hour ago, on the other side of the world and all of our eyewitnesses are dead. We don't know exactly what happened, yet."
An hour later....
Reporter: "Was it a terrorist attack?!"
Official: "We aren't sure..."
Reporter, to camera; "And so you see the administration waffling on its explanation of the terrifying events in Benghazi."
The blood wasn't even dry before information crazy Americans demanded details that no one knew so we watched the details trickle in. That's not evidence of a cover up, its evidence that the information was trickling in. Doesn't mean it wasn't a cover up, though.
I wonder why the scandal watchdogs weren't plowed under by a tsunami of flag waving the way they were after 9/11, though. A lot more Americans died from that and there is a fair amount of evidence that it may have been at least partly and inside job.
It was an unknown shooter on the Grassy Knoll, I tell you! Lee Harvey Oswald was framed!
I guess you're okay with the Commander in Chief sleeping through the night to rest up for his busy campaign week. You have no problem with him leaving for Las Vegas while the consulate smoldered and we were unsure ("we" meaning "The Administration") whether this was just the precursor to more attacks, who was involved, or even what the status of all the American citizens there might have been.
You are also okay with the arrogance of the administration lying about the video excuse, making an apology video for Pakistan broadcast at tax payer expense ($70,000), sending out the UN Secretary to lie on five news programs that weekend, constantly pointing to the video as the reason (all without ANY investigation results), blaming America's 1st freedom for the "despicable" video while standing in front of flag-draped coffins, and then weeks later stating "it was self-evident this was a terrorist attack from the beginning!"
You must also be okay where Obama said he takes full responsibility, and for anyone wanting to go after Secretary Rice should go after him instead, yet continues to blame the intelligence community and as many other people as possible for the lack of action.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but read this: I AM NOT OKAY WITH OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS BREAKING THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE. Some might excuse their actions by saying that's what politicians do, but once elected or appointed, they are then RESPONSIBLE for discharging the duties of their offices to the benefit of the American people. Instead they delayed the investigations, ignored the obvious terrorist links while lying to the public, inflamed more protests which resulted in more death and destruction, and all was done in the name of campaigning for office!!
-
:) You are misreading me.
I just have very low expectations of anyone corrupt enough to make it to the Presidency. I also don't think the President, or any elected official, has ~nearly~ as much to do with what goes on behind the scenes as people give them credit/blame for.
You can impeach Obama and have him thrown out of office. Won't stop the bad behavior. Its how our government operates. For better or worse.
At least that's how I see it. The Dems get upset about 2 manufactured wars (in their opinion) because a Republican sits in the big chair when it happens. The Republicans get upset when a Democrat is in office and some diplomats are suspiciously allowed to be killed (in their opinion). The common factor is that everyone is upset with how things are going but because of divide and conquer we aren't all upset enough at the same time. The space between the outrage on the left and the outrage on the right is very fertile ground and a lot of corrupt crap happens there because we aren't paying enough attention to it. Works pretty well.
Not saying that its OK, just that its the way it is and that there isn't much that this well divided country is going to be able to do about it. So I don't let it upset me too much.
-
:) You are misreading me.
I just have very low expectations of anyone corrupt enough to make it to the Presidency. I also don't think the President, or any elected official, has ~nearly~ as much to do with what goes on behind the scenes as people give them credit/blame for.
You can impeach Obama and have him thrown out of office. Won't stop the bad behavior. Its how our government operates. For better or worse.
At least that's how I see it. The Dems get upset about 2 manufactured wars (in their opinion) because a Republican sits in the big chair when it happens. The Republicans get upset when a Democrat is in office and some diplomats are suspiciously allowed to be killed (in their opinion). The common factor is that everyone is upset with how things are going but because of divide and conquer we aren't all upset enough at the same time. The space between the outrage on the left and the outrage on the right is very fertile ground and a lot of corrupt crap happens there because we aren't paying enough attention to it. Works pretty well.
Not saying that its OK, just that its the way it is and that there isn't much that this well divided country is going to be able to do about it. So I don't let it upset me too much.
Your words are very close to the attitude of the Muslim community. They are not saying terrorist attacks killing innocent Americans and others are okay, but they sure as hell aren't condemning them either.
This is called "tacit approval."
-
:snort:
If you say so. I can see how you might get that from what I've written.
If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.
WE could do something about it. We are too busy blaming each other to even think about agreeing on what the problem might be, much less do anything about it.
-
:snort:
If you say so. I can see how you might get that from what I've written.
If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.
WE could do something about it. We are too busy blaming each other to even think about agreeing on what the problem might be, much less do anything about it.
The only difference is the way you choose to express your feelings on the matter. In the end, the result is the same: you do nothing, and the people who are least qualified to make policy and run the nation win.
-
If you think there is a damned thing we can do about it in this political climate I'm all ears. There is a ~huge~ difference between tacit approval and the realistic acceptance that my opinion means ~nothing~ to those that run the country.
Clshade -- there is always something that each of us can do. Oftentimes if not all the time, the only real thing we can really do starts with each of our own selves.
As a member of this 2a Hawaii community, each of us need to take care of what is within each of our own "boats". There will always be something that you can do that I will not be able to do for you, and vice versa... Take care of your family, raise your kids right, talk to your neighbors, contact your representatives, vote, support the NRA/HRA, etc.
If each of us do what is within our own "kuleana" to make an effect, then taking all our collective efforts will add up and significant things start to happen.
On the other hand, if we chose to wait for the other person to act, then nothing is going to get done.
-
moosed, I know many career D.C. people. Some that move near the highest circles. The kind where they take cool, arms length iPhone snapshots of sitting in the limo with Obama or Clinton. I know they aren't really in the inner circles, though, because such snapshots still thrill them. They know it, too.
For a living I work for a non-profit that is active in policy at the ground level with several federal agencies and community based organizations. I am ~far~ from doing nothing. I just know that most of those who actually are making policy in D.C. aren't the least qualified to do so, they are the most powerful and that ~is~ the qualification. Hell, most of them aren't even elected officials. To most Americans the elected officials seem the least qualified because they seem to make decisions that we don't understand. They must just be stupid and uniformed.
Follow the money, the power, and the decision all make sense. They just aren't ~right~ according to what we were taught government is supposed to do. Decisions in D.C. are not made based on what is right. Every single one of them is made based on calculus of power - and then they figure out how to convince us that it is right or blame their political opponents if we think it was wrong. If there is no way to paint it nicely or as overtly partisan then we are distracted with other things (Gay Marriage! Flag Burning! Terrorists!!!) while they go ahead and do it anyway.
Petitioning for policy change at the highest level is the equivalent to doing nothing because it will not work. My opinion is completely irrelevant unless it reflects a much larger, threatening groundswell of public opinion. So far, they've been really good about deflating any such groundswells before they get too urgent. They're really good at that.
So I don't bother. Its not tacit approval or complacency, its not even hopelessness. Its conservation of energy.
edit: Jl808 - Absolutely correct. That is essentially the spirit behind the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally" and "All Politics are Local." Its pretty much the only power we really have and it is ~really~ hard work. Community is ~ugly~ stuff if you really include everyone. Most don't - and thus their "community" work, their "movements" have very little staying power or larger effect. If you can actually unify and motivate a whole community around a subject... those in D.C. sit up and take notice. Quickly.
Elected officials are even more trapped in the matrix of power than we are. The will of the people, if it can be articulated in a clear, unified way, is their only defense against it.
Others, like Rand and Ron Paul, stick to their ideals and do not engage that matrix of power. As a result they don't really accomplish all that much other than making a point and are more or less ridiculed by the mainstream for their "outlandish" points of view.
Sad, isn't it?
-
Feinstein, for all that we tend to demonize her, is another one of the more or less powerless ones. She's a canned package,a broken record, that sticks to her ideals and doesn't engage the matrix of power as much as others, at least not at the national level. She quietly plays her part when needed, though. The NDAA passed with a 94% vote, did it not?
As a result she doesn't accomplish much of her own agenda. The first AWB was rammed through not because she is influential but (I think) because it was a test to see how Americans would take it. It didn't go well and that experiment need not be repeated - and so her AWB never even made it to the floor. Not the right time for it.
-
.................For one, do you agree that the Benghazi coverup is worse than Watergate?
Second, do you think that the fall out will affect the administration in such a way that Obama might face some sort of catastrophic consequence?
Personally, I agree that the cover up is worse than Watergate simply because I agree with the opinion that this cover up resulted in the deaths of Americans. But I'm not so sure that what transpires, in regard to the consequences of the upcoming hearing, will be great enough to warrant any criminal charges against the likes of Obama or Hillary, or anyone in the State Department for that matter, besides Susan Rice who seems to be the scapegoat in all of this. Again, you have the separate factions of government pointing the finger at each other, much like the recent Boston bombing incident. Who's gonna get the bus driven over their back this time?
Thoughts?
Do I think the Benghazi thing is worse than Watergate................tough one but no I do not. Watergate was about trying to sway the vote of America and rig the election of the President. That in turn affects foreign policy, domestic policy............could have affected internal crime etc. If/when you can control who the President is you control everything including coverups.
Do I think this will cause the current administration to fall. No I do not. Hillary is already out of office with probably the intent on running for President in the next election. What is frightening is if she is not/was not held accountable as Sec of State what does that mean if she becomes President? At first I thought she was falling on her sword for the administration. I now think it's about staying out of the public eye so she can craft her election platform and make a run at becoming President.
Criminal charges..............I don't know if we should go so far as that. This was definitely mismanagement, but compared to Gun Walker the timeframe was quite compressed. Mistakes happen all the time and we don't want this to filter down to the ranks where every soldier becomes a target for someone who is upset because their loved ones have died. Given there are times when this should happen, but IMHO this would open the door for massive and widespread litigation.
-
Do I think the Benghazi thing is worse than Watergate................tough one but no I do not. Watergate was about trying to sway the vote of America and rig the election of the President. That in turn affects foreign policy, domestic policy............could have affected internal crime etc. If/when you can control who the President is you control everything including coverups.
Do I think this will cause the current administration to fall. No I do not. Hillary is already out of office with probably the intent on running for President in the next election. What is frightening is if she is not/was not held accountable as Sec of State what does that mean if she becomes President? At first I thought she was falling on her sword for the administration. I now think it's about staying out of the public eye so she can craft her election platform and make a run at becoming President.
Criminal charges..............I don't know if we should go so far as that. This was definitely mismanagement, but compared to Gun Walker the timeframe was quite compressed. Mistakes happen all the time and we don't want this to filter down to the ranks where every soldier becomes a target for someone who is upset because their loved ones have died. Given there are times when this should happen, but IMHO this would open the door for massive and widespread litigation.
At some point, our elected representatives and administrators (not leaders) are to be held accountable for their failures and crimes. If there are backlashes, repercussions, or detrimental consequences, they are not the result of outing the wrongs. They are the direct result of the illegal or incompetent acts of those in office and their appointees. Sometimes you have to go through a little pain before you can begin to heal. ignoring the problem only allows it to fester and become even worse.
-
This was definitely mismanagement, but compared to Gun Walker the timeframe was quite compressed. Mistakes happen all the time and we don't want this to filter down to the ranks where every soldier becomes a target for someone who is upset because their loved ones have died. Given there are times when this should happen, but IMHO this would open the door for massive and widespread litigation.
Mismanagement? An order was issued to stand down. There were personnel ready to fly and the top brass chose to abandon American citizens on American soil. Drone pilots were commanded not to fly armed drones. These weren't just some grunts. These were special forces and an American Ambassador. On top of that, worried that this would affect the outcome of the election, and the fact that according to Obama, the war on terror is over, they lied about it, tried to cover it up and blame a basically non-existent YouTube video. My personal opinion, but I think mismanagement is a gross understatement.
-
Mismanagement? An order was issued to stand down. There were personnel ready to fly and the top brass chose to abandon American citizens on American soil. Drone pilots were commanded not to fly armed drones. These weren't just some grunts. These were special forces and an American Ambassador. On top of that, worried that this would affect the outcome of the election, and the fact that according to Obama, the war on terror is over, they lied about it, tried to cover it up and blame a basically non-existent YouTube video. My personal opinion, but I think mismanagement is a gross understatement.
sad fact---- no one will be held accountable for this OR one of them will fall on their sword and make it go away for the rest. If I did this at my job, guess what? Yup---FIRED!
-
At some point, our elected representatives and administrators (not leaders) are to be held accountable for their failures and crimes. If there are backlashes, repercussions, or detrimental consequences, they are not the result of outing the wrongs. They are the direct result of the illegal or incompetent acts of those in office and their appointees. Sometimes you have to go through a little pain before you can begin to heal. ignoring the problem only allows it to fester and become even worse.
I do agree that the elected officials need to be held accountable. The question is what is accountable for some may not be for others.
-
Mismanagement? An order was issued to stand down. There were personnel ready to fly and the top brass chose to abandon American citizens on American soil. Drone pilots were commanded not to fly armed drones. These weren't just some grunts. These were special forces and an American Ambassador. On top of that, worried that this would affect the outcome of the election, and the fact that according to Obama, the war on terror is over, they lied about it, tried to cover it up and blame a basically non-existent YouTube video. My personal opinion, but I think mismanagement is a gross understatement.
I do applaud the men on the ground for having the guts to go in, but it's not always the right choice. I do not have experience in military matters of this sort so what I say and without knowledge of what actually was happening and the timing that it was happening...............you get the point.
What I do know is construction. When discussing confined space issues we always tell the guys if something happens you do not under circumstances jump in the hole, the trench, into the tank, etc. to help someone. This is because you do not know the conditions that have led to someone passing out, etc. This is backed up by the fact that as more people are injured/killed going in to help people than if they were to stand back. This is why I say there was definite mismanagement, but sending in 10, 20, 30 people in after the fact could have meant 4 + 10 + 20 + 30 people being killed.
As the facts and timeline come out, then we can make an informed decision as to if people should be punished and to what extent.
-
http://youtu.be/LdXmCXAuJF0 (http://youtu.be/LdXmCXAuJF0)
-
Mark Levin's Rage Explosion on the Media's Benghazi Blackout
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/51038-mark-levin-explodes-on-benghazi-media-blackout/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/51038-mark-levin-explodes-on-benghazi-media-blackout/)
-
.
-
Looks like it finally made the MSM and the White House is scrambling. The press beat up Carney.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/)
-
Looks like it finally made the MSM and the White House is scrambling. The press beat up Carney.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/)
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
BBC: After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768#TWEET751125 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768#TWEET751125)
-
Nothing but the truth....
-
The even worse crime is my belief that the POTUS is in a position because many people in the DNC and the Hawaii Health Dept have covered up the backround an ineligible Marxist community organizer who is totally unqualified to make life and death decisions and allowed 4 Americans to be killed in order to perpetuate a HUGE LIE... These people ALL have the BLOOD on their hands.
-
Conspiracy Theorist Body Count:
Obama: 4
Bush Jr: 2900+ (depending on if the conspiracy body count includes the 2 ensuing wars.)
Seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like Democrats from 11 years ago.
-
Conspiracy Theorist Body Count:
Obama: 4
Bush Jr: 2900+ (depending on if the conspiracy body count includes the 2 ensuing wars.)
Seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like Democrats from 11 years ago.
First of all, the conspiracy is real. It's being brought to light this past week. So, it's not a "theory."
Second, Bush never lied about what was happening in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We had embedded journalists reporting on the facts.
How many journalists have been reporting on Benghazi that don't have "FOX" next to their names?
The conspiracy is between the administration and the lame stream media.
-
Conspiracy Theorist Body Count:
Obama: 4
Bush Jr: 2900+ (depending on if the conspiracy body count includes the 2 ensuing wars.)
Seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like Democrats from 11 years ago.
Shouldn't Obama have 5 for the American citizen he took out with a drone strike?
-
One could argue that you think that because you don't like Obama.
That's exactly what I argued to the democrats: they believed the various "evidence" of any number of conspiracies BECAUSE they didn't like Bush.
Did the state department censor information about the attacks? Yes. Did they do so for their own benefit? Yes.That's politics and not (necessarily) a conspiracy. Did they do so because they didn't want the public to find out they had willfully allowed 4 Americans to die because they didn't want something even more sinister to get out? Well, maybe, but there is zero hard evidence of that so far. If you believe there is hard evidence please see my first sentence.
BUD: Prolly. We can throw in a few more just for good measure, too.
edit: Holy crap! Bush never lied?! Wow. Just... wow. Not touching that with a 10 foot pole other than to say we went to war in Afghanistan because a group of (mostly Saudi) terrorists pulled of a heinous attack on us, then we went to war with Iraq because they wouldn't show us WMD's that they didn't have and many Americans supported it because they thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. You just don't think of what the Bush Administration said as lies because you agreed with the outcomes. They were lies in the same way this Benghazi BS is lies: they were wilfull distortions of the truth.
-
One could argue that you think that because you don't like Obama.
That's exactly what I argued to the democrats: they believed the various "evidence" of any number of conspiracies BECAUSE they didn't like Bush.
Did the state department censor information about the attacks? Yes. Did they do so for their own benefit? Yes.That's politics and not (necessarily) a conspiracy. Did they do so because they didn't want the public to find out they had willfully allowed 4 Americans to die because they didn't want something even more sinister to get out? Well, maybe, but there is zero hard evidence of that so far. If you believe there is hard evidence please see my first sentence.
BUD: Prolly. We can throw in a few more just for good measure, too.
edit: Holy crap! Bush never lied?! Wow. Just... wow. Not touching that with a 10 foot pole other than to say we went to war in Afghanistan because a group of (mostly Saudi) terrorists pulled of a heinous attack on us, then we went to war with Iraq because they wouldn't show us WMD's that they didn't have and many Americans supported it because they thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. You just don't think of what the Bush Administration said as lies because you agreed with the outcomes. They were lies in the same way this Benghazi BS is lies: they were wilfull distortions of the truth.
Do you enjoy putting words in peoples posts and then acting all incredulous over something nobody actually said? Who said "Bush never lied?" I missed that part. I was speaking specifically about the wars, which is because YOU brought them up as Bush's "body count."
Try to stay on point and don't get all excited about things you THOUGHT you read when it couldn't be any further from the truth.
And by the way, attacking the person and their motives instead of using facts to support your case is straight out of the Liberal debate playbook. Looks like you've been taking notes! (Re: One could argue that you think that because you don't like Obama/Bush.) Whether or not a person LIKES a President is irrelevant if the facts are supported by the truth. I suppose I would have been shouted down if I criticized Hitler, too, just because it appeared I hated the man?
-
Second, Bush never lied about what was happening in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We had embedded journalists reporting on the facts.
Did I misunderstand something? (Edit: Or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do consider the misinformation that lead up to the wars as lies "about what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan")
What I am not making clear is that what you consider fact - as per your posts as I understand them - is based on your belief. I'm not saying that the belief is wrong, just that there are no facts, yet, that support it. Suspicions, allegations, possibilities - yes. Facts? No.
Fact: Administration knew about the terrorists
Fact: The edited references to terrorists out of the talking points
Assumption: Because they were covering up a conspiracy.
That's not a "liberal tactic", that's pointing out a basic fallacy in logic.
Then, in an attempt to demonstrate how everyone does this, I pointed out how the liberals fall prey to that same fallacy of logic. (edt: damn. No, I erased something a little clearer that I wrote along those lines because I thought it was ranging too far off topic. Apologies. I see now that my post does look more like an attack than I originally intended it to.)
Relax, boo.
-
Democrats, Republicans.... How can you tell if a politician is lying?
...... Their mouth is moving.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to lump the good with the bad but it seems that people nowadays don't hold politicians accountable enough against lying.)
-
Did I misunderstand something? (Edit: Or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do consider the misinformation that lead up to the wars as lies "about what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan")
What I am not making clear is that what you consider fact - as per your posts as I understand them - is based on your belief. I'm not saying that the belief is wrong, just that there are no facts, yet, that support it. Suspicions, allegations, possibilities - yes. Facts? No.
Fact: Administration knew about the terrorists
Fact: The edited references to terrorists out of the talking points
Assumption: Because they were covering up a conspiracy.
That's not a "liberal tactic", that's pointing out a basic fallacy in logic.
Then, in an attempt to demonstrate how everyone does this, I pointed out how the liberals fall prey to that same fallacy of logic. (edt: damn. No, I erased something a little clearer that I wrote along those lines because I thought it was ranging too far off topic. Apologies. I see now that my post does look more like an attack than I originally intended it to.)
Relax, boo.
Lies that lead up to the wars? Maybe you have forgotten we were attacked by terrorists, and taking the war to the Middle East prevented any further such attacks ... until Boston and Benghazi at least.
If you are referring to the WMD's, we covered that, Syria is the most likely location where Saddam hid them. We KNOW he had them ... he used them. That's indisputable. We know he refused UN inspections to ensure he didn't have more. That's indisputable. We found many signs of the chemicals and manufacturing/storage for WMDs in Iraq. Again, indisputable. Today, Syria has been assessed to have chemical weapons of the type Iraq was supposed to have. I'm inclined to think 2+2 is still four.
If you know of actual lies that Bush relied upon DURING the wars, then I'm all ears. We are comparing Obama lying for political gain. Bush didn't lie so he could be reelected ... he was in office less than a year when 9/11 happened. Obama is guilty of ATTEMPTING to mislead the nation (world?) so he could win reelection. Even though he won, many, if not most, were never fooled. We knew it was terrorism. Only a lying politician had any doubts! It was the anniversary of 9/11. Get real!. The motivations of the two CinCs, even if you showed there were intentional lies as opposed to inadequate intel as was suggested, make this no comparison at all to me.
BTW, for all the times people say Bush lied about why we went to war, the CONGRESS voted to support the decision, not based on Bush telling them what was happening, but based on the exact same Intel Bush was being provided.
-
I saw him on TV in a interview
In one of Bushes books he wrote recently he says they found a lot of WMD's but didn't want to let the Enemies know what they found because Saddam hid them all over the place. So he lied to keep them out of the hands of the terrorists.
Of course the MSM is not going to report this.
-
http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/benghazi-the-biggest-cover-up-scandal-in-u-s-history-was-benghazi-a-cia-gun-running-operation-for-muslim-brotherhood-other-insurgents-fighting-in-syria/ (http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/benghazi-the-biggest-cover-up-scandal-in-u-s-history-was-benghazi-a-cia-gun-running-operation-for-muslim-brotherhood-other-insurgents-fighting-in-syria/)
WOW!
-
The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"
We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)
The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)
When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)
Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.
So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....
That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!
Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.
So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.
-
hey guys
we're getting to the point where everyone should consider agreeing to disagree
this thread and the one that turned into a theology lesson have remained remarkably civil
but they are reaching the point where things start to get ugly
i admire the fact that you guys have made it several days in both threads without them exploding, but i can sense a disturbance in the force
just sayin...
The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"
We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)
The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)
When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)
Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.
So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....
That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!
Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.
So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.
-
macsak: Probably right. Thanks. :shaka:
-
The even worse crime is my belief that the POTUS is in a position because many people in the DNC and the Hawaii Health Dept have covered up the backround an ineligible Marxist community organizer who is totally unqualified to make life and death decisions and allowed 4 Americans to be killed in order to perpetuate a HUGE LIE... These people ALL have the BLOOD on their hands.
Unfortunately "qualified" has nothing to do with it. It's about being the duly elected POTUS. Heck there are a lot of people in the military who are unqualified to make decisions, but they are making them every single day.
....................edit: Holy crap! Bush never lied?! Wow. Just... wow....................
IMHO we need to recognize that all people in those positions lie. Some for the greater good, some for the not so good, etc. I do think the general American population has the right to know the truth, but not necessarily all of it.
-
Democrats, Republicans.... How can you tell if a politician is lying?
...... Their mouth is moving.
(Sorry, I didn't mean to lump the good with the bad but it seems that people nowadays don't hold politicians accountable enough against lying.)
Truth man.
-
The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"
We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)
The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)
When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)
Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.
So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....
That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!
Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.
So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.
You left out a little event: Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait (fact). That was the reason the US & UN forces initially engaged Iraq.
During the war between Iran and Iraq, we supported the lesser of the 2 Muslim evils. I don't think Iran has done or said anything to make us believe that was the wrong path. When an Iraqi jet deliberately hit the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf with a missile in 1987, it marked the rapid decline of diplomatic efforts between The US and Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident)
And trying to imply the US is inconsistent in it's relationship with another country is lame. We start out trying to build a coalition, but sometimes things turn sour. It's not a guarantee that the friendly countries remain friendly forever!
We have an international policy for a reason. We try to strategically choose the nations as friends who can further our national interests, or who would be even worse were they in bed with another country (Russia or China?). There is no perfect solution. The US has backed many leaders, even though they were not playing by the rules we'd like, to prevent an even more evil or less US-friendly leader coming to power. You have to play the hand you're dealt. The only other solution would be to militarily force these leaders out and establish another government in its place, like we did in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. So far, all we've done is prove Al Quaeda knows how to take advantage of an unstable country and either take it over or make it that much more unstable.
-
...............We have an international policy for a reason. We try to strategically choose the nations as friends who can further our national interests, or who would be even worse were they in bed with another country (Russia or China?). There is no perfect solution. The US has backed many leaders, even though they were not playing by the rules we'd like, to prevent an even more evil or less US-friendly leader coming to power. You have to play the hand you're dealt. The only other solution would be to militarily force these leaders out and establish another government in its place, like we did in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt. So far, all we've done is prove Al Quaeda knows how to take advantage of an unstable country and either take it over or make it that much more unstable.
How has the US used its military to force out leaders in Libya and Egypt?
-
We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)
Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!
1) What WMD's did Iraq acquire from us? Just so we are talking about the same "basic" definition of WMD, I assume you are referring to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons?
I know "destructive devices" defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) section 921 is included in the official definition, which includes just about every thing you could imagine, but when most people (general public) think or hear of WMD's, they believe it to be chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and not a destructive device. If you're including destructive devices in the use of the term WMD, I agree with your point.
2) Heard this on Huckabee over the weekend but I believe he said it perfectly when some were using the same Bush/Benghazi analogy on him. I'm paraphrasing but this is basically what he said, which is also how I see it.
"Benghazi is not the same because in the case of WMD’s, people and Intel agencies really thought there was WMD’s but they were mistaken. There is a big difference between a mistake, when you think you’re telling the truth and it turns out you’re not, and a lie, when you know you’re not telling the truth. In the case of Benghazi, we had people that knew it wasn’t caused by a video but continued to say it anyway.
-
How has the US used its military to force out leaders in Libya and Egypt?
NATO aircraft then fired on 11 of the vehicles, destroying one. A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] (almost certainly Creech Air Force Base) fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force fighter jets continued the bombing.[10] The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters. Following the first strike, some 20 vehicles broke away from the main group and continued moving south. A second NATO airstrike damaged or destroyed 10 of these vehicles. According to the Financial Times, Free Libya units on the ground also struck the convoy.[11]
According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO stated that in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1973, it does not target individuals but only military assets that pose a threat. NATO later learned, "from open sources and Allied intelligence," that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike likely contributed to his capture.
...
Immediately after Gaddafi's death, NATO released a statement denying it knew beforehand that Gaddafi was traveling in the convoy it struck. Admiral James G. Stavridis, NATO's top officer, said the death of Gaddafi meant that NATO would likely wind down its operations in Libya.
"Oopsie! We didn't see him there!!" That looks like military force to me, whether intentional or (if you believe it) unintentional !
I have been particularly interested in how the U.S. has been discussed in relation to the revolution. From my observations of events and numerous discussions with others, Egypt’s relationship with the U.S appears, in some ways, to be absent from most of the heated discussions going on today. But upon closer examination, this relationship has been present in the revolution, not only during and after the peak of events—from January 25 to February 11—but also, I would suggest, in the very anti-imperialist underpinnings of the revolution, a revolution that the mainstream American media has miscast as one generated purely internally.
We (the US) had been propping up Mubarak since 1975. We were providing $1.5billion in support annually. Suddenly, he was so hated, an internal uprising succeeds without outside intervention? And is this how the US treats our allies, turning our backs when the leader we supported for so long comes under assault? The US may not have had drones attacking THIS leader's convoy, but there was no dividing wall separating the US from the events of this revolution.
-
Moosed if I'm not mistaken the US took a backseat in the involvement, basically forcing the other members to act.
I would point out that lack of military aid does not constitute military involvement. That means we are involved one way or the other with every single country on this planet. As far as lack of support, when the dog cannot be controlled and has bit someone, you gotta put it down. Saddam was propped up a lot due to his involvement with Iran in their conflict in the '80's...........didn't stop us from going in after he invaded Kuwait.
-
For me, in regard to Libya, it rubs me the wrong way how Obama handled the situation. Sure, it was a very quick operation. But you could argue that he violated the War Powers Act without going through Congress first. Some argue in contrast to that, so I guess it depends on what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on. Benghazi, I believe, was part of the fall out, as it was Gaddafi's weapons caches that were being raided and run to Syria (speculation at this point, though reported by some news outlets and so-called "sources." One example HERE (http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/sources-confirm-u-s-gun-running-to-jihadists/)). But essentially, knowing about the violence in the region, having intel concerning a possible terror attack on the US, not providing any additional security when requested, telling soldiers to stand down and then trying to blame it all on a stupid YouTube video all during an election year makes me seriously question the decision making ability of our leaders. Have there been other egregious acts performed by administrations in the past? Obviously. But to point the finger at Iraq but give the current administration a pass just because he's your "guy," or you're more concerned about political fall out is just sickening. When do we as a people look past party lines and demand accountability because we're honestly concerned about holding government accountable? Or are we just divided along political lines and only hold the other party responsible when they muck up?
I hold Bush 100% responsible for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Iraq (Iraqi Freedom, not the Bush #1 campaign), to me it was a side show. We knew that the Saudi's were the ones who funded 9/11, yet we give them a pass every single time they're tied to any terror event. So we go invade Iraq on the premise of the Global War on Terrorism? Nice distraction. Sure, Congress approved the invasion, which essentially makes it legal. But definitely not the most prudent thing to do. Very poor use of our resources and I still do not agree with the invasion. Now we're left with a country that is still suffering from the aftershock of the war, still has to deal with warring religious factions and has, in my opinion, no identity whatsoever.
Egypt, we helped supply them with money and weapons but had no reported boots on the ground. Thanks to our resources, the Muslim Brotherhood, a.k.a. al Qaeda, gain political power in yet another country who we helped topple their tyrannical dictator (Libya being another). Not very smart on our part, as they are still protesting in Tahrir Square over a (new) tyrannical government, so what did we accomplish except lots of wasted tax dollars?
And good grief, with top DC IRS officials linked to the unfair and basically illegal audits of conservative, tea party and Jewish organizations, the DOJ secretly obtaining AP phone conversations under direct approval from Eric Holder, this administration has some explaining to do. And not just in regard to Benghazi. Most transparent government in history, eh? This 2nd term of Obama's is starting out pretty darn bleak. His chickens are coming home to roost. I wonder how they're going to recover from this? This not only affects Republicans, but has implications for both sides. Wow. What a $h!t storm this has turned into. I bet that they're wishing Benghazi was the only so-called "scandal" they have to deal with. Now it's a 3-headed monster.
-
The murder of the ambassador and 3 additional brave Americans were hushed up to keep BHO in office. Now the career state department officials testifying before congress will also be destroyed by the libs. After the death of ambassador Stevens, his second in command courageously testified. I wish this brave man good luck, they will do their very best to punish him. The IRS tried to retaliate against the tea party, jews, and conservative groups. Now we hear of the AP press scandal. What's next? Is this the hope and change that was promised?
I am not a Bush lover but didn't Sadam gas the Kurds and Iranians? Are chemical weapons still considered WMD's?
-
O'Reilly's talking points memo yesterday entitled "Truth and the Federal Government" fits with this topic.
http://nation.foxnews.com/irs-scandal/2013/05/13/oreilly-truth-and-federal-government (http://nation.foxnews.com/irs-scandal/2013/05/13/oreilly-truth-and-federal-government)
-
"To be sure, issues like personal privacy and national security must be treated with the care they demand. But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.
I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.
Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE -- January 21, 2009