Benghazi scandal tied to White House

[EagleSmack]

That's exactly what happened and it was shameful behaviour. Attempted deflection by dolts and numbskulls changes none of that.

Absolutely shameful.


The Administration not doing anything about the attack... lying about the reasons behind the attack, covering up with lies for political reason so they can coast through November.


Now they're busted and they're trying to say this is political. Pathetic.

 

[Locutus]

Absolutely shameful.


The Administration not doing anything about the attack... lying about the reasons behind the attack, covering up with lies for political reason so they can coast through November.


Now they're busted and they're trying to say this is political. Pathetic.

and the disrespect and insolence with 'it was like 2 years ago dude', 'it was only 4 people', and 'what difference at this point does it make' from shillary.

fuk you dems. fuk you.

 

[BaalsTears]

Not exactly the A team there. They went in without UN approval. The US and the UK were the only countries to send a significant number of troops.



Oh man. I gave you way too much credit.

As I said, the people on Fox news and Sun news are commentators, just like Jon Stewart. They give their opinion on the news and play to their base.

It certainly doesn't mean that their opinions are never correct, but you have to recognize the difference between news and commentary.



That was my point. I am using it to show the difference between how certain people react to each incident, not to say that the actual war or Benghazi incident were moral or not.



I am comparing Afghanistan to Iraq, not 911. Obviously perspective is very different on opposing sides of a conflict.



It is not fraud to react to changing circumstances in the world. It wasn't the US that decided to intervene in Libya, it was the UN as a whole.

The decision for the US to go into Iraq was made without UN approval and with falsified evidence.



I think our biggest difference on this issue is what we consider the "result" of an action. I think that the most important result is how many people were killed by that decision. In that respect, Iraq and Libya had dramatically different results. The decision to go into Iraq also resulted in a much longer and costlier engagement.

In terms of retreating from the middle east, the plan was never to occupy the place for ever. The US has never really had a firm hold on the region. It is always embroiled in one conflict or another.



Libya ended their nuclear program because they wanted to normalize their relations with the US and get sanctions lifted. There was never any understanding that the US would sit idly by if they started shooting their own citizens or block the UN from acting on a situation like that.



That battle you mention lasted one day. The Iraq war lasted 9 years, right in the midst of an explosion in the amount of media coverage in the US.

It can easily be shown as the reason that the US is now shying away from getting too involved in foreign conflicts.



Or you can say that they simply don't want to be involved in wars. It is not a very complicated ideology.



Iraq was a ground invasion, occupation, and counter insurgency operation. That is very different than what happened in Libya.

Tactics and strategy aren't the same thing. You're going to have to stay after school for some remedial history lessons. PM me with your Paypal account...nothing's for free.

 

[DaSleeper]

When arguing with Ruff you guys should remember DR Drew's old saying......


The wise man doubteth often & changeth his mind;the fool is obstinate,and doubteth not;he knoweth all things but his own ignorance!


And by letting yourselves get sucked into his silly arguments......you validate him...when he is only worthy of derision.

 

[BaalsTears]

Not exactly the A team there. They went in without UN approval. The US and the UK were the only countries to send a significant number of troops.



Oh man. I gave you way too much credit.

As I said, the people on Fox news and Sun news are commentators, just like Jon Stewart. They give their opinion on the news and play to their base.

It certainly doesn't mean that their opinions are never correct, but you have to recognize the difference between news and commentary.



That was my point. I am using it to show the difference between how certain people react to each incident, not to say that the actual war or Benghazi incident were moral or not.



I am comparing Afghanistan to Iraq, not 911. Obviously perspective is very different on opposing sides of a conflict.



It is not fraud to react to changing circumstances in the world. It wasn't the US that decided to intervene in Libya, it was the UN as a whole.

The decision for the US to go into Iraq was made without UN approval and with falsified evidence.



I think our biggest difference on this issue is what we consider the "result" of an action. I think that the most important result is how many people were killed by that decision. In that respect, Iraq and Libya had dramatically different results. The decision to go into Iraq also resulted in a much longer and costlier engagement.

In terms of retreating from the middle east, the plan was never to occupy the place for ever. The US has never really had a firm hold on the region. It is always embroiled in one conflict or another.



Libya ended their nuclear program because they wanted to normalize their relations with the US and get sanctions lifted. There was never any understanding that the US would sit idly by if they started shooting their own citizens or block the UN from acting on a situation like that.



That battle you mention lasted one day. The Iraq war lasted 9 years, right in the midst of an explosion in the amount of media coverage in the US.

It can easily be shown as the reason that the US is now shying away from getting too involved in foreign conflicts.



Or you can say that they simply don't want to be involved in wars. It is not a very complicated ideology.



Iraq was a ground invasion, occupation, and counter insurgency operation. That is very different than what happened in Libya.

You gave me a reddie so I'm giving you a greenie to show you what it's like to turn the cheek.

 

[BornRuff]

Moving the goal post again I see. It was not unilateral was it? And who really gives a sh*t about the UN? Many military actions happen without UN approval. And Canada has been in on them as well... they even led one.

If semantics is your only argument, you are not doing very well.

At any rate. The Obama Administration lied about Benghazi and there will be investigations because of their lying and getting people killed.

How did they get anyone killed? How would a talking point on a sunday news program after the fact affect the deaths of these people?

When arguing with Ruff you guys should remember DR Drew's old saying......


The wise man doubteth often & changeth his mind;the fool is obstinate,and doubteth not;he knoweth all things but his own ignorance!


And by letting yourselves get sucked into his silly arguments......you validate him...when he is only worthy of derision.

Lol, so many meaningless platitudes, so little ability to actually refute what I am saying.

Tactics and strategy aren't the same thing. You're going to have to stay after school for some remedial history lessons. PM me with your Paypal account...nothing's for free.

Lol, well, since I didn't use either of those words in my post, maybe you are a bit confused.

 

[BaalsTears]

Under Obama, Libya has become "Scumbag Woodstock:"


"...It didn’t take long for the Smart Diplomacy crowd to throw away Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War. All anyone can hope for now is that they don’t go all the way back and throw away FDR’s victory in World War 2.

The Washington Post bitterly reproached the Obama administration for engaging in the false economy of dismantling the standing peace without anticipating the immense costs of containing the chaos it unleashed or allowed to grow in malignancy. Referring to Libya the editorial board wrote:

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

As one analyst once put it, ‘Khadaffy gave up his WMDs voluntarily and wound up in a meat freezer. So much for signals.” Chaos in Libya may be an overstatement, but only just. Eli Lake at the Daily Beast wrote that “so many Jihadists are flocking to Libya, it’s becoming ‘Scumbag Woodstock’”


Not only does al Qaeda host Ansar al-Sharia, one of the militias responsible for the Benghazi attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. But U.S. intelligence now assesses that leaders from at least three regional al Qaeda affiliates—al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and members of the organization of Al-Mulathameen Brigade loyal to Algerian terrorist, Mokhtar BelMokhtar—have all established havens in the lawless regions of Libya outside the control of the central government.

One U.S. military contractor working on counter-terrorism in Africa summed up the situation in Libya today as simply, “Scumbag Woodstock.” The country has attracted that star-studded roster of notorious terrorists and fanatics seeking to wage war on the West.

And all courtesy of the US taxpayer..."

Belmont Club » The Return of History

 

[BornRuff]

Under Obama, Libya has become "Scumbag Woodstock:"


"...It didn’t take long for the Smart Diplomacy crowd to throw away Ronald Reagan’s victory in the Cold War. All anyone can hope for now is that they don’t go all the way back and throw away FDR’s victory in World War 2.

The Washington Post bitterly reproached the Obama administration for engaging in the false economy of dismantling the standing peace without anticipating the immense costs of containing the chaos it unleashed or allowed to grow in malignancy. Referring to Libya the editorial board wrote:

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

As one analyst once put it, ‘Khadaffy gave up his WMDs voluntarily and wound up in a meat freezer. So much for signals.” Chaos in Libya may be an overstatement, but only just. Eli Lake at the Daily Beast wrote that “so many Jihadists are flocking to Libya, it’s becoming ‘Scumbag Woodstock’”


Not only does al Qaeda host Ansar al-Sharia, one of the militias responsible for the Benghazi attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. But U.S. intelligence now assesses that leaders from at least three regional al Qaeda affiliates—al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and members of the organization of Al-Mulathameen Brigade loyal to Algerian terrorist, Mokhtar BelMokhtar—have all established havens in the lawless regions of Libya outside the control of the central government.

One U.S. military contractor working on counter-terrorism in Africa summed up the situation in Libya today as simply, “Scumbag Woodstock.” The country has attracted that star-studded roster of notorious terrorists and fanatics seeking to wage war on the West.

And all courtesy of the US taxpayer..."

Belmont Club » The Return of History

I really don't see why you think the WMDs thing was supposed to give him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted going forward.

Giving up WMDs is obviously a huge step towards normal diplomacy, but waging a violent war against your own people is obviously a huge step in the other direction.

The article criticizes them for not sticking around to set up a new government. How successful was the US in doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan? Especially in relation to what it cost?

 

[Walter]

Dems are threatening Gowdy.
Police investigate threats against Trey Gowdy - Lauren French - POLITICO.com

 

[EagleSmack]

If semantics is your only argument, you are not doing very well.

Doesn't it suck when facts become so inconvenient?

 

[BornRuff]

Dems are threatening Gowdy.
Police investigate threats against Trey Gowdy - Lauren French - POLITICO.com

It sounds like people just really like trying to kill this guy regardless of what committee he is on.

Doesn't it suck when facts become so inconvenient?

Lol, the fact that you don't like my choice of words isn't all that inconvenient to me.

The US decided they were going in regardless of who was going to support them. It wasn't a choice based on anyone else's support. What you choose to call a decision such as that is really of no consequence.

 

[EagleSmack]

Lol, the fact that you don't like my choice of words isn't all that inconvenient to me.

The US decided they were going in regardless of who was going to support them. It wasn't a choice based on anyone else's support. What you choose to call a decision such as that is really of no consequence.

But they were supported... semantics nay... facts si!

 

[BornRuff]

But they were supported... semantics nay... facts si!

Do you honestly think that the support of Poland or Australia had any impact on their decision to invade Iraq? Or did they make up their mind on their own and simply invite anyone who want to come along?

 

[EagleSmack]

It certainly helps when the US is not unilaterally invading countries.

Do you honestly think that the support of Poland or Australia had any impact on their decision to invade Iraq? Or did they make up their mind on their own and simply invite anyone who want to come along?

Indeed it sucks when snared by thyself. Do not flail about so... the snare of thou own making is bound tight.



How as forcible feeble that nay be~ Cauchy

 

[BornRuff]

Indeed it sucks when snared by thyself. Do not flail about so... the snare of thou own making is bound tight.



How as forcible feeble that nay be~ Cauchy

Lol, ok, you can continue to worry about semantics as much as you want.

What would you call it if a country decides they are going to invade another regardless of what anyone else thinks?

 

[Locutus]

Lol, ok, you can continue to worry about semantics as much as you want.

What you would call it if a country decides they are going to invade another regardless of what anyone else thinks?

know I not. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Lol, ok, you can continue to worry about semantics as much as you want.

What you would call it if a country decides they are going to invade another regardless of what anyone else thinks?

The organic laws realistic courts to fit at and fill to you but details my demon.~ Cauchy

 

[Locutus]

check out this sour old c*nt:




Rep. Stacey Newman ‏@staceynewman

Thinking of saying "Benghazi" while debating tomorrow on the House floor. Just to see what happens. #moleg


more


‘To the Left, four corpses are a punchline’: Mo. state rep sicko repulses with gross Benghazi ‘joke’ | Twitchy

 

[BornRuff]

check out this sour old c*nt:




Rep. Stacey Newman ‏@staceynewman

Thinking of saying "Benghazi" while debating tomorrow on the House floor. Just to see what happens. #moleg


more


‘To the Left, four corpses are a punchline’: Mo. state rep sicko repulses with gross Benghazi ‘joke’ | Twitchy

The right made it into a punchline. If you repeat a word enough times it starts to become detached from any sort of reality.

 

[pgs]

Lol, how does stating that opinion is different than fact imply that?

Are you really already out of arguments and just resorting to meaningless platitudes?

Nope that's you . I notice you never compromise in any of your views .