Movie 13 Hours will re-open Benghazi discussion

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Paul, but this is an opportunity to attack Clinton...wink wink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by buckman

And really " what does it matter anyway "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buck, the posts by PaulS and Spence should confirm for you the circle jerk of denial that they keep spinning. And the last one by Spence perfectly describes their own effort: "God that's pathetic." At least he occasionally uses the word "God." "Heaven" only knows why.

I mean, really? Paul says "They thought they had adequate security." Is that supposed to be an excuse for being wrong? the so-called "security" plan was a departure from the norm. And it was seriously stupid. (Not to mention Stevens' repeated requests for more protection).

Then he asks "Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security?" As if they could get past Obama's veto. Maybe the Dems should have provided more security with the proper funding? They have no compunction about spending money we don't have whenever they want to do something. Funding adequate security would have been a financial drip in a bathtub compared to all the "investments" in their sacred Great Society programs which have bankrupted the nation. Let us just overlook the fact that they intentionally provided a lack of normal security in order to show the Libyans that we weren't somehow trying to invade their turf, or bullying our way into it. Lack of funding was not the problem. Lack of proper security provided by an intentional and foolish plan was the problem.

Then he says "There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq." I didn't know that time was spent on trying to find out how we ended up there. Didn't think that was even a mystery. And so what? Must there be some equivalence in time spent? What does his sentence have to do with anything other than trying to make something important look ridiculous.

Then he says "Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people." Which makes one ask why we had such inadequate security.

Finally he asks "Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"
Many think we should. But, if we don't, shouldn't we have better protection than was provided at Benghazi?

But the circle jerk of denial insists that we should not be wasting time on such things because lots of "investigations" supposedly didn't find that Clinton did anything wrong . . . wink wink.

Its all "old news" except when they come across some article in the NY Times or Salon that makes their circle jerk look good. Then it's worth talking about. (Unless we keep bringing up time-wasting discussions about the incompetent management of Benghazi.)

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

God that's pathetic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Oops, almost started reading that boring post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

There it is, Buck. They just keep deflecting by piling on the nonsense.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is pathetic is using someone's death to try to make political points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

What's pathetic is 4 good people died because politics and self ambition took precedence over proper procedure and commonsense .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Bad things happen when bad people are involved. Just bc someone died in a bad part of the world doesn't mean someone did something wrong. But the right will continue to try to blame it on someone so they can get their pound of flesh. The only reason politics even entered into it is so the Right can try to use the death of the 4 to blame Clinton - Pathetic.

And for you to say in an earlier post that there was no politics involved in the movie shows you either missed the point or were unaware. A major part of the issue was whether they where told to stand down.

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

Secondly you would be a fool to think politics were not involved in this, from the excuse of the video to the reason there was no security .

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We prob. need another committee to look into it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We prob. need another committee to look into it.

long weekend coming up...probably get a big document dump

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Its comical those who continue to insist on their Historical revisionism

I think if you look at the volume of who and what is gets posted here they clearly are By definition the circle jerk


VIA Urban Dictionary
When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

We are all involved in circle jerks. It's just that my circle jerk is better than yours.

A mistake, incompetence, poor judgment, are not examples of "wrong doing." The "investigations" explicitly noted that Benghazi was avoidable and happened because of mistakes, incompetence and poor judgment. The most egregious being the lack of proper security. And that was not just the usual "systemic" failure, or normal human fallibility. It was poor judgment in administrative planning to leave the responsibility for security to a substandard, unarmed, Libyan contingent. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/liby...pound-benghazi Even more so if there was no timely available assistance in close enough air bases for support. There was an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans at the expense of security for Americans.

I realize that there are a number of Americans who approve of that type of appeasement. But I don't think most Americans do. And it is proper to point out that appeasement mindset in a candidate for POTUS. Or for any other government post.

[wdmso]

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

[ecduzitgood]

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

I wonder if the request for additional security and it's being denied was being read by anyone who could of hacked into her server and thus they picked the softer target?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They thought they had adequate security. Maybe the Repubs. should have voted for more money for security? There has been more time spent on this than trying to find out how we ended up in Iraq. Many of Our embassies are in dangerous places with dangerous people. Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They thought they had adequate security. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In which "no air assets within a 13 hour flight radius" = adequate security.

Atta boy, Columbo!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That would have been a classified request and sent on a secure system.

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

appeasement the favorite Conservative buzz word when we cant do what we want to do in someone else's country

appeasement definition. A political policy of conceding to aggression by a warlike nation.

Respecting a countries border's and their sovereignty is not appeasement

Good catch. That was a sloppy use of the word "appeasement" on my part. Should have used a more accurate description. Something more suggesting concession or compromise. As in compromising the security of Americans in order to get along or in order to not appear to be humiliating or bullying or insulting (to the Libyans).

Didn't occur to me appeasement was a conservative buzz word. Do only non-conservatives use appeasement to mean appeasement?

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't either of those two things, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

What is for sure is that it was a bungle. As was found to be the case in the lots of "investigations." Not a feather in the cap of one who is running for President.

Wait a minute. I rechecked my use of appeasement. I said "an attempt to appease the sensitivities of Libyans". "Appease the sensitivities" was used as a personally concocted term of art. And it was in that manner that I said " that type of appeasement." It's OK to do that if we're not strictly using legal terminology.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, is Hilary a serial liar? Yes or no?

No.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for respecting Libya's sovereignty, it depends on what the Benghazi compound was officially considered to be. It was quite often referred to in the Press as a consulate or diplomatic mission. As such it would have been immune to local laws. And if it wasn't, what the heck was it? We had an Ambassador operating there.

Some conspiracy theorists claim it was actually a CIA operation doing secret things that we're not supposed to know about. And that the State dept. is taking flack in order to cover for the CIA. I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

I haven't seen the video but perhaps they were just out for a walk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It was a mission. We already had an embassy and this was an outpost to extend our diplomatic reach. The Ambassador had taken a personal interest in helping Benghazi, he was there specifically for a meeting (certainly to smuggle manpads )...

For all the Clinton-Hate fueled blame game people shouldn't forget the 30,000 Libyan locals who protested Steven's death.

Why would they do this?

Ahh . . . now I get it. Part of the security planning for the diplomatic mission--have 30,000 Libyan locals protest Stevens' death if he were, unfortunately, to be killed. Brilliant. Now THAT is what success looks like. This is the kind of stuff that great Presidents are made of.

Too bad the 30,000 Libyan locals couldn't, actually, have prevented Stevens' death. But that would have effed up the plan.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

Bill didn't cheat on me, we are the victims of a vast right wing conspiracy.

These girls claiming that Bill assaulted them, are just looking for publicity.

We were broke when we left the White Houses (they found the tens of thousands to re-pay the National Park Service for everything they pillaged from the White House on their way out)

I came under sniper attack, and had to dive - DIVE! - into the Humvee

All the deleted emails were personal - yoga classes, Chelsea's wedding plans, things like that.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"They thought they had adequate security'

They (State Dept) were wrong. The person in charge of that, is seeking a big promotion. She also told Gen Petreus that no one would believe his speculation of what the surge would accomplish in Iraq, unless they surrendered to "the willful suspension of disbelief". She was wrong on that too. She also said, many times, that Iraq had WMDs.And where did she get that info?

"how we ended up in Iraq"

Because many people, including Hilary, said it was necessary. How about that?Based on info. from whom? Was the intel that Pres. Bush shared a lie or was it the biggest intelligence failure in our history?

"Should we leave 1/2 of the Mid East and Africa?"

Better to leave, than to leave people there unprotected, right?

So you must be in the camp w/Trump and blame Pres. Bush for 9/11, right? Someone has to be blamed!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

First of all Paul, someone did do something wrong and many mistakes were made and nobody has been held accountable . That is undeniable

And finally, go see the damn movie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who should be held accountable for 9/11? I guess you're another one who blames Pres. Bush.

[buckman]

[QUOTE=PaulS;1093544]Who should be held accountable for 9/11? I guess you're another one who blames Pres. Bush.[/QUOTE

I think justice was served to those that were accountable . I even give President Obama his due in this respect .
If you're looking for an American that could have stopped 9/11 you would have to go back to the prior administration before Bush
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sorry, I'm not understanding that 2 sentences. Can you pls. clarify them.

So Bush doesn't bear any responsibility even though people in his cabinet that reported directly to him where notified that OBL was trying to attack us and he received classified briefings that were entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S?" Wasn't he Pres. for over 9 months before 9/11?

I don't need to clarify my sentences.
I was just stating the fact that the people ultimately responsible for 9/11 have been served justice . Can you say the same about Benghazi ?
I don't think you would ever hear President Bush deny that it happened on his watch or try to blame another president or anyone else for what happened .
Can you say the same about Benghazi or President Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device