Watch Conservative Media's Favorite Benghazi Myth Fall Apart [W:47,61]

[SBu]

More bad news for Fox News and the conservative media concerning a supposed scandal. Adm. Michael Mullen and Thomas Pickering blows their lies out of the water.

I don't think it's a question of the military response. It's a question of the handling of the situation after the attack. Also, possibly a question of why military assets weren't pre-staged in a region prior to what is an iconic day requiring a heightened state of alert. True, some military assets or responders were told to "stand down" during the event but I think you're right that it wasn't politically motivated. However, the preparation leading up to Sep-11 2012 seems insufficient and the response after the fact was almost certainly a political coverup.

 

[Hatuey]

Well that was Reagan's military.

President Reagan was one of the better Commander in Chiefs in America's history, highly competent when it came to the military.

1983 United States embassy bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The April 18, 1983 United States embassy bombing was a suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 63 people, mostly embassy and CIA staff members, several soldiers and one Marine. 17 of the dead were Americans. It was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission up to that time, and is thought of as marking the beginning of anti-U.S. attacks by Islamist groups.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[2] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.[3] An elderly Lebanese man, a custodian/vendor who was known to work and sleep in his concession stand next to the building, was also killed in the first blast.[4][5][6] The explosives used were equivalent to 9,525 kg (21,000 pounds) of TNT.[7][8]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

The U.S. military took no action in retaliation. In Kuwait, 17 people were arrested and convicted for participating in the attacks. One of those convicted was Mustafa Youssef Badreddin, a cousin and brother-in-law of one of Hezbollah's senior officers, Imad Mughniyah. After a six-week trial in Kuwait, Badreddin was sentenced to death for his role in the bombings.

Buckley was the fourth person to be kidnapped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. The first American hostage, American University of Beirut President David Dodge, had been kidnapped in July 1982. Eventually, 30 Westerners would be kidnapped during the 10-year-long Lebanese hostage-taking crisis (1982-1992).

In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. According to the U.S. State Department's 1999 report on terrorist organizations, elements of Hezbollah are "known or suspected to have been involved" in the bombing.

An American soldier was killed when a bomb was detonated at La Belle, a discotheque in West Berlin known to be popular with off-duty U.S. servicemen. A Turkish woman was killed, and nearly 200 others were wounded.

You know, I have a friend on this forum called Cherokee. He was one of the survivors of the attacks on the Beirut barracks. I'd bet dollars to dirt he'd say you're full of **** and Reagan was a little warhawk ****. But that's just him. He wasn't fond of people with selective memories. He'd also say that St. Reagan was so competent with the military that under his watch was bombed to **** without any kind of response. But that's just him. He was that type of guy.

 

[Kobie]

Funny how those who wank to Reagan forget that not only did the Marine barracks get blown up in Beirut, but later members of his administration (without Reagan's knowledge *wink*) sold weapons to Iran to find paramilitary death squads in Central America and then lied to Congress about it.

 

[P. Kersey]

1983 United States embassy bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Terrorist Attacks On Americans, 1979-1988 | Target America | FRONTLINE | PBS









You know, I have a friend on this forum called Cherokee. He was one of the survivors of the attacks on the Beirut barracks. I'd bet dollars to dirt he'd say you're full of **** and Reagan was a little warhawk ****. But that's just him. He wasn't fond of people with selective memories. He'd also say that St. Reagan was so competent with the military that under his watch was bombed to **** without any kind of response. But that's just him. He was that type of guy.

Pointing to misdeeds of the past to justify or excuse misdeeds in the present is weak and narrow minded.

 

[P. Kersey]

Funny how those who wank to Reagan forget that not only did the Marine barracks get blown up in Beirut, but later members of his administration (without Reagan's knowledge *wink*) sold weapons to Iran to find paramilitary death squads in Central America and then lied to Congress about it.

Pointing to misdeeds of the past to justify or excuse misdeeds in the present is weak and narrow minded.

 

[sawdust]

I have never seen anyone allege that the military refused to respond to the attack on the Libyan consulate for political purposes. The congressman build a strawman with his initial statement. The charge in Benghazi is that there was insufficient protection for the consulate prior to the attack. The failure in Benghazi lies strictly with the State Department whose responsibility it is to insure the safety of the consulate by requesting sufficient military power to defend it.

 

[P. Kersey]

I have never seen anyone allege that the military refused to respond to the attack on the Libyan consulate for political purposes. The congressman build a strawman with his initial statement. The charge in Benghazi is that there was insufficient protection for the consulate prior to the attack. The failure in Benghazi lies strictly with the State Department whose responsibility it is to insure the safety of the consulate by requesting sufficient military power to defend it.

I didn't see where anyone said the military "refused to respond to the attack". I haven't been following closely and I guess I missed that. Who said that?

Our armed forces can't unilaterally decide to go someplace and kill some people without authorization from a politician.

I think the problem is that no one with authority could/would make the decision to send support to prevent the embassy from being overrun, right?

I agree with everything else you said.

 

[sawdust]

I didn't see where anyone said the military "refused to respond to the attack". I haven't been following closely and I guess I missed that. Who said that?

Our armed forces can't unilaterally decide to go someplace and kill some people without authorization from a politician.

I think the problem is that no one with authority could/would make the decision to send support to prevent the embassy from being overrun, right?

I agree with everything else you said.

I just listened to the congressman in the video who said that Republicans had been criticizing the military in his opening statement. He stated a charge that never existed and in fact, the title of this thread is based on that inaccuracy.

 

[P. Kersey]

I just listened to the congressman in the video who said that Republicans had been criticizing the military in his opening statement. He stated a charge that never existed and in fact, the title of this thread is based on that inaccuracy.

Thanks for your help...It's my own fault for not keeping up. That "congressman" is a fool...but wait.."congressman" and "fool" are synonyms anyway.

 

[Kobie]

Pointing to misdeeds of the past to justify or excuse misdeeds in the present is weak and narrow minded.

Nobody is doing that!

You may see me bringing up past misdeeds as excusing present ones ... that's not it at all. I simply get sublime enjoyment on pointing out the hypocrisy of those who flagellate current misdeeds while simultaneously lionizing someone who presided over some very bad, bad things. Call it a hobby of mine.

 

[P. Kersey]

Nobody is doing that!

You may see me bringing up past misdeeds as excusing present ones ... that's not it at all. I simply get sublime enjoyment on pointing out the hypocrisy of those who flagellate current misdeeds while simultaneously lionizing someone who presided over some very bad, bad things. Call it a hobby of mine.

Your best response to the current situation is to say "They did it too"? How about correcting the problem rather than playing partisan politics?

...and your language betrays your bias..When talking about the party you don't like you characterize people as "lionizing" bad behavior and when they criticize the party you do like they are "flagellating".

No one is doing either of those things. People (other than partisan hacks) are sick and tired of being lied to by politicians. Your partisanship just won't allow you to see that. Everything is polarized into an "us" and "them" dynamic in your mind. It shows in almost every post.

 

[pbrauer]

Benghazi is not going to go away until we are given the truth about what happened, IMO. If an Ambassador's death isn't considered important, where does that leave the rest of us?

In the video Adm. Michael Mullen (Ret.) gave you the truth, there was nothing that could have been done, but because of politics, you don't believe him.

 

[Hatuey]

Pointing to misdeeds of the past to justify or excuse misdeeds in the present is weak and narrow minded.

Only I didn't excuse anything. I completely obliterated the stupid claim that Reagan's military was any better. If anything, Reagan's military was a paper tiger.

 

[P. Kersey]

Only I didn't excuse anything. I completely obliterated the stupid claim that Reagan's military was any better. If anything, Reagan's military was a paper tiger.

The (former) soviet union didn't think so, did they?

 

[Hatuey]

The (former) soviet union didn't think so, did they?

Another red herring to avoid the fact that Reagan's mighty military kept being attacked without ANY response from Reagan? Aww, tell me you're going to go on about how Reagan was responsible for bringing down an institution which was crumbling by 1975? Here is how it will go:

1. You're going to go and cite the CATO institute.
2. I'll bring up the fact that the dissolution "former" Soviet Union is in name only and Russia still runs many of those countries as satellites.
3. You'll "prove" they're not communists anymore.
4. I'll explain to you that it really doesn't matter. Moscow still profits from the slave labor of about 8-9 other countries and has spread its influence into places it couldn't 30-35 years ago (Brazil, Venezuela, Central America, most of West Africa - thanks in part to the also "former" - Red China, and now thanks to the GOP - the Middle East).
5. You'll cry about the symbolism of the Berlin Wall being taken down.
6. I'll explain to you that theatrics were Reagan's game. He was after all an actor.
7. You'll throw in another red herring.

That's how this debate will go. So please, save yourself the embarrassment. Trying to prove that Reagan was anything more than Alzheimer's patient with a knack for theatrics is a serious uphill battle that you don't purposely want to engage in by citing 3rd rate opinion pieces.

 

[APACHERAT]

1983 United States embassy bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



.

:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information...

 

[APACHERAT]

[
You know, I have a friend on this forum called Cherokee. He was one of the survivors of the attacks on the Beirut barracks. I'd bet dollars to dirt he'd say you're full of **** and Reagan was a little warhawk ****. But that's just him. He wasn't fond of people with selective memories. He'd also say that St. Reagan was so competent with the military that under his watch was bombed to **** without any kind of response. But that's just him. He was that type of guy.

So noted, your Cherokee's spoke hole.

 

[Grant]

Nobody is doing that!

You may see me bringing up past misdeeds as excusing present ones ... that's not it at all. I simply get sublime enjoyment on pointing out the hypocrisy of those who flagellate current misdeeds while simultaneously lionizing someone who presided over some very bad, bad things. Call it a hobby of mine.

Yes, in fact you are doing just that.

Ronald Reagan has been gone a long while now and the only reason he is mentioned is to further whitewash this Benghazi tragedy and the following cover-up attempt.

 

[P. Kersey]

Another red herring to avoid the fact that Reagan's mighty military kept being attacked without ANY response from Reagan? Aww, tell me you're going to go on about how Reagan was responsible for bringing down an institution which was crumbling by 1975? Here is how it will go:

1. You're going to go and cite the CATO institute.
2. I'll bring up the fact that the dissolution "former" Soviet Union is in name only and Russia still runs many of those countries as satellites.
3. You'll "prove" they're not communists anymore.
4. I'll explain to you that it really doesn't matter. Moscow still profits from the slave labor of about 8-9 other countries and has spread its influence into places it couldn't 30-35 years ago (Brazil, Venezuela, Central America, most of West Africa - thanks in part to the also "former" - Red China, and now thanks to the GOP - the Middle East).
5. You'll cry about the symbolism of the Berlin Wall being taken down.
6. I'll explain to you that theatrics were Reagan's game. He was after all an actor.
7. You'll throw in another red herring.

That's how this debate will go. So please, save yourself the embarrassment. Trying to prove that Reagan was anything more than Alzheimer's patient with a knack for theatrics is a serious uphill battle that you don't purposely want to engage in by citing 3rd rate opinion pieces.

You're funny!
Delusional, too.

 

[pbrauer]

:attn1: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information...

Jesus, is that the best you can do? LOL LOL LOL

 

[Grant]

Jesus, is that the best you can do? LOL LOL LOL

What has this thread got to do with the Reagan Administration?

This is the same attempted whitewash exposed in the OP.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

OK, infractions have been levied. The personal attacks stop now, or more shall be.

 

[Kobie]

Yes, in fact you are doing just that.

Ronald Reagan has been gone a long while now and the only reason he is mentioned is to further whitewash this Benghazi tragedy and the following cover-up attempt.

I wasn't the one who actually brought up Ronald Reagan, genius.

 

[pbrauer]

Sounds like dereliction of duty. Our military wasn't prepared to respond in the hottest place in the world at the time.

I seem to remember when terrorist were discovered to be on board a commercial airliner over the Mediterranean Sea during the Reagan administration, in less than 30 minutes after receiving the orders from Cn'C Reagan, Navy aircraft took off of a carrier and intercepted that aircraft and forced it to land at a NATO air base in Italy.

Well that was Reagan's military. What did Obama's military have in the area ? Nothing.

BTW: Admiral Mullen was known as being one of the biggest yes men to ever have four stars on his collar.

President Reagan was one of the better Commander in Chiefs in America's history, highly competent when it came to the military.
He put a highly competent Casper Weinberger as Secretary of Defense and had John Lehman as Secretary of the Navy, definitely not a yes man who made sure that all the military commanders were warriors and competent and always made sure their was a Carrier Battle Group on station in every fleet's AOR 24/7 to be able to respond in minutes to any international crises. That's the main job of the President, Commander in Chief of the military.

What has this thread got to do with the Reagan Administration?

This is the same attempted whitewash exposed in the OP.

You answer is in the two posts above.

 

[Kobie]

You answer is in the two posts above.

God forbid some posters around here actually, yanno, read before screeching about "whitewashing."