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?
Do John McCain remember any of these before President Obama beat him ?
I tired to delete this post
Do John McCain remember any of these before President Obama beat him ?
I tired to delete this post
The 4 accomplished nothing. The 5k brought human rights and democracy to Iraq.
Well see that's just the thing.....the issue is here is Benghazi and it is under this President and HIS Administration and Those People He picked to Allegedly Lead his Policy along the way. This is what McCain is talking about. He isn't wallowing in the past as those issues do not have to do with what took place here. National Security and Interests was put at risk just over any CIA operations alone. Especially if any clandestine affairs was dealing with those Weapons that magically made it to Syria.
This is not about Bush, Iraq, Afghanistan.....unless you count Iraq and Afghanistan in with the Correlation of Obama dropping the Ball on the Anniversary of 911. Which then would include what took place in Egypt. Which was premeditated by One of the Highest Ranking Sunni Alleged Holy Men in Egypt. Who used Social networking to call on all to rise up and Protest the US not just in Egypt but 23 other Muslim Countries. Which the US has not even asked to have him brought in for questioning. Which was able to take place due to the policy that Obama and Clinton had implemented throughout the ME.
Also once again you bring up intel during the Bush Administration. At that time Other Foreign governments were not required to share any intel with us. Even if we were their ally. Nor was Any of those outside the US that were involved in any Law Enforcement operations which involved the same people we were looking for. Prime example was the French Interpol.....who had agents in many other countries. So you can thank Bush for forcing the French to Comply with others over the sharing of intel. Especially with any clear and imminent attack in motion on the US or any of our Allies.
Even within our own Organizations of Intel and LE's. Were not Sharing any type of Intel with one another. Not even our Military Intels were sharing info unless ordered to do so. Course Obama doesn't have that excuse. As all are in contact and on the same page allegedly.
You should have deleted your post. The "Blue Street Journal" !!! You have to do better than that.
Jan. 22, 2002. This was an attack near the American consulate. No Americans killed.
June 14, 2002, This was a truck bomb attack outside the walls of the Consulate.
Feb. 28, 2003. This was an attack outside of the Embassy by gunmen.
June 30, 2004.This was a suicide bomber attack out side of the Embassy.
Dec. 6, 2004.This was an Al Qaeda attack upon a diplomatic compound, not an Embassy or consulate.
March 6, 2006.This was a car bomb that blew up outside the walls of a U.S. Consulate.
Sept. 12, 2006. This was a unsuccessful "raid" by gunmen who never entered the U.S. Embassy.
March 18, 2008. This was a mortar attack against the U.S. Embassy.
July 9, 2008. This was an unsuccessful attack by gunmen upon the U.S. Consulate.
Sept. 17, 2008. This was a car bomb attack outside the walls of the Embassy.
The looney Blue Street for some reason for got to mention the January 12, 2007 attack by European liberals using an RPG on the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece.
The 4 accomplished nothing. The 5k brought human rights and democracy to Iraq.
One of the questions being asked and Hillery Clinton, the State Department, Barack Obama and the White House refuse to answer, why was there a U.S. Consulate in Benghazi ? Diplomatic business is conducted at Embassies not at consulates. The U.S. Embassy for Libya is located in Tripoli. Consulates are for convenience of U.S. citizens who are on tourist or business visas and for issuing visas to foreign nationals. To the best of my knowledge, Benghazi wasn't a tourist destination for Americans. Benghazi doesn't even have a beach or any waves surfable ! What was the business that was taking place at the consulate in Benghazi, issuing tourist visas to Al Qaeda ?
Yet in most instances . . . the embassy or embassy personnel (protecting the embassy) were attacked (no matter how dishonest the numbers are) . . . the attacks occurred, and an insistence the walls must be breached before it is outrageous is in my opinion . . . intellectually dishonest. But . . . it was because they hated our freedom . . . and most that died were not American. No outrage. Unless, citizens from other countries die like in Kenya and Tanzania under Bill Clinton. Weakness under Clinton . . . under Bush? It's a cost of doing war. I truly dislike selective outrage.
I don't have outrage for either Bush or Obama . . . I do not hold outrage for Clinton either. This is the cost of doing foreign policy in host countries that cannot always control their people. Stop already.
Obama's Benghazi Massacre?
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.
I think all those years John spent a the Hanoi Hilton is catching up with him.John McCain don't know if he's going are coming anymore he's senile! ijs :lamoJohn McCain is a lying POS of a hypocritical politician and can go straight to Hell.
Whatever he says or does means that the opposite is really the truth.
Screw him.
Rushing to war based on nothing but lies and false information is nothing to be proud of.
Man, that Chalabi and the INC sure did sucker a lot of people....
January 1996: CIA Ends Its Relationship with Chalabi
The CIA—concerned about Chalabi’s contacts with Iran and convinced that he is not capable of delivering on his promises—severs its ties with him and the Iraqi National Congress. [ABC, 2/7/1998; New Yorker, 6/7/2004; Christian Science Monitor, 6/15/2004] Former CIA base chief Robert Baer recalls in 2006 that “[t]he quality” of the INC’s intelligence “was very bad. There was a feeling that Chalabi was prepping defectors. We had no systematic way to vet the information, but it was obvious most of it was cooked.” [Mother Jones, 4/2006]
1997-1998: Ahmed Chalabi Befriends Neoconservatives, Advocates Overthrow of Iraqi Government
According to Middle East expert Judith Kipper, around this time, Ahmed Chalabi makes “a deliberate decision to turn to the right,” having realized that conservatives are more likely than liberals to support his plan to use force to topple Saddam Hussein’s government. Chalabi’s aide, Francis Brooke, later explains to the New Yorker: “We thought very carefully about this, and realized there were only a couple of hundred people” in Washington capable of influencing US policy toward Iraq. He also attends social functions with Richard Perle, whom he met in 1985 (see 1985) and who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Dick Cheney, the CEO of Halliburton.
According to Brooke, “from the beginning, Cheney was in philosophical agreement with this plan. Cheney has said, ‘Very seldom in life do you get a chance to fix something that went wrong.’” Paul Wolfowitz is said to be enamored with Chalabi. According to an American friend of Chalabi, “Chalabi really charmed him. He told me they are both intellectuals. Paul is a bit of a dreamer.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004] He also becomes friends with L. Marc Zell and Douglas Feith of the Washington-Tel Aviv law, Feith and Zell. [Salon, 5/5/2004]
Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brooke find allies in the US Senate’s Republican leadership.
They provide the Republicans with details about the events surrounding the INC-CIA’s 1995 failed plot against Saddam Hussein (see March 1995) and Iraq’s subsequent incursion into Kurdish territory (see August 1996) which the Republican senators use against the Clinton White House and the CIA. “Clinton gave us a huge opportunity,” Brooke later recalls. “We took a Republican Congress and pitted it against a Democratic White House. We really hurt and embarrassed the president.” The Republican leadership in Congress, he acknowledges, “didn’t care that much about the ammunition. They just wanted to beat up the president.” Senior Republican senators, according to Brooke, are “very receptive, right away” to Chalabi and Brooke’s information, and Chalabi is soon on a first-name basis with 30 members of Congress, including senators Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Newt Gingrich. [Alternet, 5/21/2004; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]
President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (ILA) into law. The act, which passed with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, was written by Trent Lott (R-MS) and other Republicans with significant input from Ahmed Chalabi and his aide, Francis Brooke. [US Congress, 10/31/1998 ; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]
Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress
Hey, looky here, McCain says he was a critic of the war....for four years...and if you believe that I got a bridge in Alaska to sell ya....
CHETRY: It seems you’ve been painted as being a huge supporter of the president’s Iraq strategy. Is that an inaccurate portrayal?
MCCAIN: It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.
But I do believe that this general, who will report back in the middle of September, as you know, and this strategy is succeeding...."
McCain: 'I Was The Greatest Critic' Of The Iraq War Over The Last Four Years | ThinkProgress
I am so glad he wasn't elected president or we'd still be quagmired in Iraq.
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. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.
Well see that's just the thing.....the issue is here is Benghazi and it is under this President...
Tell that to the ones who keep bringing up Clinton!
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
It's just not American embassies and consulates that have come under attack. out of 131 such attacks, only 32 were American embassies or consulates.
Being attacked is just that, an attack. When an embassy perimeter is breached, that's when the nations embassy security forces can use deadly force, the attackers have now entered sovereign territory. When the attackers are able to gain access with inside the embassy building is when we have a huge problem.
What we are seeing with this incident that happened in Benghazi seems to be a cover up by the Obama administration.
For two weeks the Obama administration blamed it on a YouTube video. Why ? (This caught everyone off guard, Obama didn't blame Bush.)
(But some liberal Democrats tried to blame Republicans in Congress for cutting funds to the State Department until it was discovered that Obama's State Department was spending appropriations not on security but for green recharging stations for hybrid cars at embassies.)
We find out that two former Navy SEAL's were under attack and requested help and no help came. Why ?
Not confirmed yet but British sources say that British SAS were only a few kilometers of the consulate and CIA compound while they were under attack. SAS contacted the American State Department offering to respond and rescue any Americans. No response from the State Department. Why ?
President's Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush always had a navy carrier in the Mediterranean Sea and a Marine rifle battalion on ships 24/7 during their administrations to be able to respond to such an incident. Why not Obama ?
Where was President Obama during these seven hours while these Americans were under attack asking for help ?
Why can't the Obama administration answere simple questions ?
Because Obama has an mental illness known as narcotism. He never takes responsibility for his own mistakes and always blames others and always takes credit for what others did right.
If the truth were have come out before the elections that Obama was derlict in his duties and Commander and Chief and it was exposed that Obama is and has been an incompetent Cn'C who's more concerned with using the military for social engineering than what the real purpose of what the military is for, killing people and blowing things up in the name of defense and interest of the United States, it would have jeopardised Obama being reelected.
If the Obama administration deliberately put off these hearings on Benghazi until after the elections for Obama's own political gain and there was a cover up that Obama and his administration knew that the attack on our consulate wasn't about a video but a terrorist attack, that's an impeachable offense. That's why the Obama administration refuses to answer questions.
A majority of Congressional Democrats didn't fall for the false intel and voted no on Authorization of Force in Iraq, as had the UN before.
Again that does not change the fact they knew what the ground was like in Libya? See Kerry Knew as he had gone to Egypt to watch Democracy take place in action. We also had a Contingent from the Arm Serves Committee and Intelligence Committees that knew what it was like in Libya, and on the ground.
Moreover your statement has nothing to do with all those Democrats voting for the way Bush set up the intel sharing legislation. Which you aptly avoid.
Course you cant get around the 2 separate investigations that shows sheer incompetence of Team Obama with the failing to recognize clear and Obvious warning signs. Even including a Prior attack on the same very Consulate. Not even Bush was that damn stupid. Looks like Hillary and her crew were. Another first for the History Books Under the Obamabaloney.
But don't you worry.....we gonna make sure where that credit goes and is due.
:shrug: It still boils down to 4 dead due to bad intel in Benghazi vs almost 5,000 dead due to bad intel in Iraq.
Let's not forget the thousands of GI's that came home with life altering injuries. An the broken families that resulted from th Iraq war.
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?