• 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


Wow, that's quite a stretch considering Richard Clarke briefed the Bush administration that Al Qaeda intended to fly planes into symbolic national infrastructure inside US borders.....

Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified

The President's Daily Brief Coverup


Not to mention that Bush gave the Bin Laden family an exclusive secret flight out of the US and let Osama Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora. It all could have been over in a few weeks....but that would have foiled the Bush administrations plan to attack Iraq.
 



This from the guy that still defends the unnecessary war in Iraq based on false intelligence. :3oops:
 

Bush screwed up and stuck with Clinton's policy, Al Qaeda was a law enforcement issue, not a national security issue.

Bush also screwed up by not removing the "Wall" that President Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno put up that didn't allow the CIA, NSA, military intelligence to communicate with the FBI, ICS, USCS and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies when it came to terrorist like Al Qaeda.

America screwed up by forcing political correctness upon airport security who watched some of these terrorist in the airport terminals and were suspicious but couldn't do a damn thing because the political left would accuse them of profiling and call them racist.

It's all there in the 9/11 Commission Report.
 
Moot said:
and let Osama Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora.
Click to expand...

From what I've been told, it was liberal JAG lawyers in the JAG Corps who actually were responsibly for OBL being able to escape.

Are you one of those who believed that the war against Al Qaeda was all about killing Osma bin Laden ? And once Bin Laden was dead we could declare victory and there would no longer be an Al Qaeda or terrorism in the world ?

I bet last Sept. 11th was a rude awakening for you when you heard about Benghazi.
 
Catawba said:
This from the guy that still defends the unnecessary war in Iraq based on false intelligence. :3oops:
Click to expand...

What would you say if I told you that President G.W. Bush was just following the law that former President Clinton signed in to law ?

Think back to 2003 when the Bush administration first went in front of Congress. Before WMD's were part of going to war. Remember ?

FWI: I was not a big supporter of going in too Iraq, especially with Clinton's military, only being able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.

But once our troops crossed the border in to Iraq, remembering what it was like being stabbed in the back while on the battlefield of Vietnam by my own peers and the Democrats who sent me to Vietnam, never again. Once our troops were committed, I was going to back them up 100 %
 
 

"Our soldiers Stabbed in the back by politicans at home"?

Now where have I heard that line of reasoning before?
 

So Bush screwed up but it was really Clinton's fault. Oh what I'd give to live in such a world full of bull****.
 
APACHERAT said:
Bush screwed up and stuck with Clinton's policy, Al Qaeda was a law enforcement issue, not a national security issue.
Click to expand...
Uh no, Bush or should I say Cheney rejected Clinton's policy in favor of his own. The results speak for themselves.

A lot more classified material has been released since the 9/11 Commission Report so be sure to watch "Hubris, the Selling of the Iraq War" on MSNBC tonight . It should be very informative.

Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War - Monday 2/18 at 9 p.m. ET - The Maddow Blog
 


Funny how you rationalize tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths due to bad intelligence in Iraq yet are outraged by four deaths due to bad intelligence in Benghazi.

BTW, at least the majority of Congressional Democrats that voted against AOF in Iraq did not fall for the bad intell.
 
You said everything I wanted to. Thanks for that. Those who put their heads in the sand
for this loser of a president and care nothing about the people who died in Libya are sick.


 
APACHERAT said:
What would you say if I told you that President G.W. Bush was just following the law that former President Clinton signed in to law ?
Click to expand...
I'd say lets see a link to that law.


I seriously doubt that Clinton would have ever invaded Iraq and neither would've Gore. The only people really intent on attacking Iraq were Bush and his neocon advisors and they said as much in a letter to Clinton back in 1998.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq
 

Funny how you rationalize that Benghazi is just about the 4 Deaths not just due to bad intel. But for the incompetence to not even being able to recognize clear warning signs that had already had our people placed at Risk. All of our People in Libya. Also noting the trivialization of a US Ambassador being killed. 2 Former Navy Seals who should be having their Story of Bravery and Heroics told. Course maybe when you figure out why the statements of NONE of the survivors have been made public then you might have the beginnings of a major clue.

Which btw the Majority of Democrats, Clinton and Obama knew what it was like in Libya since the ouster of Gadhafi. Which they knew it was the Will Wild West and that the TNC could not protect our people. That's the Host government. That Clinton failed to make any note of, while sending Stevens there to assist in the removal of weapons to Syria. Despite the US denial and despite Clintons Friends of Syria Meetings wherein she admitted to the US involvement in assisting with soft aid.

Moreover this does not include compromising the CIA and any operations they had going on. As well as the Safe-house.
 

Where were the nearest gunships? Italy? France? Spain?

The only reinforcement who were on hand who could actively defend the embassey was Libyan forces
 
 

The law that President Clinton signed was the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1999."

And I concur, Clinton is a pantywaist, he never had the cajones to deal with Saddam Huesain. But G.W. Bush did.

>" I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first
day without UNSCOM monitoring.

"Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM
monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments
regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat,
namely to overthrow Saddam.

On Oct 30, Radio Free Iraq began broadcasting. In an Oct 30 press
statement, David Newton, head of RFI, explained "that in addition to
local news about Iraq, programs will focus on democracy, free speech and
human rights. 'Under the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein,
people in Iraq never a chance to hear about these issues,' said Newton,
a former US ambassador to Iraq. He says broadcasts to Iraq will
eventually expand to six hours a day, airing in the Arabic as well as
Kurdish languages." Transcripts and RealAudio of the broadcasts will be
available at Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act
of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House,
Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress
that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi
opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the
bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the
current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I
signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance
to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required
by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile
information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity,
and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to
justice those directly responsible for such acts."
Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not
less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi
democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should
be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The
conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than
$3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War
Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of
Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration
to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the
Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq."
The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's
signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began
by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing
the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.
The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of
any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is
the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will
rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and
that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.
Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be
free of weapons of mass destruction."

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
Statement by thePpresident
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of
1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that
the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition
that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality
of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime
in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a
freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that
of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom
at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable
due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis
deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported
regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the
reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these
objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such
changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the
Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in
check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of
the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition
groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a
popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8
million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify,
work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the
Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will
include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a
step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional,
discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to
further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other
important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of
U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's
prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that
continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to
international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi
opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives
as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can
effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those
observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998 "< Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
 
 
Ray410 said:
See if you can understand this:

Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives.
Click to expand...

Clearly this is worse than 9-11 and the Iraqi conflict, in which Bush prevailed at almost no cost to American soldier's lives and almost no taxpayer dollars.

You conservatives and your pseudo problems. No wonder you'll do nothing but lose elections from now on.
 

I read it.


What did the president do when he heard? What orders did he give? Why did the president depart and show no further interest in the Abandoned Four who had no choice but to be murdered during Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
 
Misterveritis said:
I read it.


What did the president do when he heard? What orders did he give? Why did the president depart and show no further interest in the Abandoned Four who had no choice but to be murdered during Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
Click to expand...

See your problem is that you think what the President did or did not do is critical to the situation and how and why it transpired. And all your interested in is what you can find that the President did, or how you can make what happen look like the responsibility of the President for the purpose of attacking him. You have no interested in what actually happened, or where along the dozens of levels of the chain of command from this consulate to the President were there failures that allowed this to happen. No what this is an excuse to attack the President and nothing more.
 

Yet you go to the opposite extreme and assert that due to the complexity of the situation that nobody "high up" is to blame. Consider the case of the BP gulf rig or Exxon Valdez "accidents"; while clearly the corporate heads and stockholders were not at fault, for the oil spills, they were still held fully accountable.
 

I read both documents. I did see in the PDB that Al Qaeda cells in the US were making preparations for hijackings. Where was the part about flying the hijacked aircraft into buildings found?
 



But no problem with the president leading the nation into an almost decade long war based on bad intel, despite all the warnings that Iraq was not a threat to the US, right..................!
 

and you have the opposite problem.

I have great interest in what actually happened. The president said he would have a thorough investigation so he could find out what he did. Well? What did he do?

Who, in your opinion, can order cross border military operations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…