- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
I am impressed with just how much history you are able to revise in just one sentence.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..................!
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.
Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “shared responsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.
The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, with talented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel often on temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminished institutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity.
The Board found that certain senior State Department officials within two bureaus in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of proactive leadership and management ability appropriate for the State Department’s senior ranks in their responses to security concerns posed by Special Mission Benghazi, given the deteriorating threat environment and the lack of reliable host government protection. However, the Board did not find that any individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities, and, therefore did not find reasonable cause to believe that an individual breached his or her duty so as to be the subject of a recommendation for disciplinary action.
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?
G.H. Bush went to war against Iraq with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.
G.W. Bush went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.
Bush's Generals warned Bush, we can defeat the Iraqi military and accomplish the mission of "regime change" but we have to have 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq after the mission is accomplished.
Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld says "You go to war with what you got."
Saddam Hussein believes G.W. Bush is bluffing, who would invade Iraq with only 200,000 troops ?
Bush wasn't bluffing.
Read the F.B.I. interrogation of Saddam Hussein and get back to me. -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
BTW: I knew it had nothing to do with WMD's or even oil. I knew back in 2001 that there was going to be a regime change in Iraq. Bush was going to take care of the problem that Clinton couldn't accomplish in eight years.
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 do not say that at all, but I do follow the report's findings.
If a platoon of Soldiers is ambushed and destroyed by the enemy, you don't get the General in front of you and ask where he physically was and what he was doing while that was happening, you don't ask him why he didn't direct air support or take specific actions while this ambush was happening. Everyone knows and understands that there are several layers of command between that platoon and the general who's job it is to handle those kinds of things.
Likewise with Obama, its stupid to ask where he was and what was he doing, the system is designed to act without intervention by the President because you simply can't wait that long for him to personally be managing affairs nor is is effective at all from the since of time management and his own personal expertise. He has layers and layers of command beneath for very important reasons that should be obvious. What can be asked in regards to Libya are decisions that are directly related to decision making at the Presidential level. Was assisting the Libyan rebels a good idea? Or, "Why did we decide upon having a consulate in Benghazi, and what were our goals there." Those last two questions are also handled heavily by the Secretary of State mostly anyway, but I would say its fair to ask Obama what kind of accountability he keeps in house.
Questions about tactical decision making on the ground are NOT the President's lane and we don't want them to be in his lane.
Just glancing through this report you can come up with several questions that are relevant, things it mentions that you would want to know more about and would be in the Secretary of State's purview to oversee, gather information on, and correct.
Better PDF version:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
No the President did not say he'd launch an investigation into what he himself did, and as for the investigation, I linked it so there are your answers.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
Maybe instead of going to war with an insufficient military for the task, and blaming someone for making it insufficient, we shouldn't have gone at all?
I don't know about you but long ago when I had some responsibilities for surveillance of the border between Western Germany and Czechoslovakia a platoon leader attacking across that border, if he survived, would have been out of a job.
Who, in your opinion, can direct a cross-border operation?
Americans were being murdered and the president knew it. Why didn't he exercise any leadership whatsoever? Why didn't he bring in the SECSTATE since he already had the SECDEF with him? Where was the CJCS? What options was he asked about?
There are plenty of people who can move forces in preparation. Who, in your opinion, could have ordered the nearest fighter aircraft on strip alert to fly to Benghazi? Who, in your opinion should have been the one to make it all happen if it was not the One?
Why is the president missing in action when something important is happening?
This was not a dinner meal gone horribly wrong. This was an attack by Al Qaeda on US people and property.
He stonewalled. He lied. He covered up. And you are his helper. We still don't know what he did or where he was.
Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.
When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.
Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.
Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:
Scribd
G.H. Bush went to war against Iraq with Reagan's military and was able to put 500,000 boots on the ground.
G.W. Bush went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground.
Bush's Generals warned Bush, we can defeat the Iraqi military and accomplish the mission of "regime change" but we have to have 400,000 troops to occupy Iraq after the mission is accomplished.
Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld says "You go to war with what you got."
Saddam Hussein believes G.W. Bush is bluffing, who would invade Iraq with only 200,000 troops ?
Bush wasn't bluffing.
Read the F.B.I. interrogation of Saddam Hussein and get back to me. -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
BTW: I knew it had nothing to do with WMD's or even oil. I knew back in 2001 that there was going to be a regime change in Iraq. Bush was going to take care of the problem that Clinton couldn't accomplish in eight years.
Rushing to war based on nothing but lies and false information is nothing to be proud of.The law that President Clinton signed was the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1999."
And I concur, Clinton is a pantywaist, he never had the cajones to deal with Saddam Huesain. But G.W. Bush did.
<snip>....On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,....<snip>....Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq." The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.
....<snip>....."
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
The point being that almost 10,000 boots didn't come back home with live soldiers in them unnecessarily, and that was completely due to bad intelligence. And McCain still defends the invasion of iraq based on bad intelligence.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Indulge yourself, pay attention to the Reagan and Clinton years. Serving in the military is a serious and dangerous job even during peace time. As you'll notice, more members serving in the U.S. military were killed during the first two years of the Reagan administration than any two years in Iraq and we weren't even fighting a shooting war back then.
In fact check out the demographics of the Vietnam War and you'll notice that the liberal activist were lying as usual.
4 were killed unnecessarily in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 killed unnecessarily in Iraq.
The 4 accomplished nothing. The 5k brought human rights and democracy to Iraq.
You're making it out to be black and white.
4 were killed unnecessarily in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 killed unnecessarily in Iraq.
Cat is making it out to be the same thing. We dunno what was going on in Beng.
For example in 1972 one could say that the Vietnam War accomplished the safety and security of South Vietnam. But in 1975, three years later, all you could say the US got out of the Vietnam War was a South Vietnam that lasted 3 years. Two vastly different statements and what it took for the effect of our action to truly be seen and come to fruition was time. Of course those in 1972 may have been able to see the writing on the wall or see the potential risks of things to come which eventually did come three years later, just like today many people can see the risks of potentially bad things that may come in Iraq. So like I said, it will take time to truly see what the full meaning of our War in Iraq truly was. But one thing we know without a doubt right now is not that Iraq is a place of human rights and democracy, but that there were no WMDs, we know for a fact right now that our of primary reasons to go to war was completely empty.
It will certainly take time. People declaring failure in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghan and elsewhere are a bit early in my opinion. One note: Vietnam still established US intent and capacity to intervene militarily in SE Asia.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?