If the former director of the CIA's affair is front page news does that make anyone else nervous about the status of the secrets of our nation?
If the former director of the CIA's affair is front page news does that make anyone else nervous about the status of the secrets of our nation?
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess
i feel a strong correlation between this scandal and the plot of burn after reading.
LOL. I know Burn after Reading had a plot but it was so convulated its hard to remember it. I read the synopsis and recalled watching the moving but that plot line needs a three dimensional map to make sense.
pretty much the same kind of thing this has exploded into.Originally Posted by Lohman446
This all strikes me as smoke and mirrors to cover the murder of the ambassador by the terrorists.
They have known all about this for something like 6 months and just when he is supposed to testify before Congress about the attack this hits the news.
he will still probably testify. and all statements so far from him have supported the presidents version of events. as will all statements from any military folks. and all statements from all reasonable military commentators.Originally Posted by wetwrks
there isn't anything to cover up. sorry guys, the rage machine invented Benghazi as an issue. a tragedy yes, a coverup - no. i also revel in the irony and hypocrisy of the GOP. after 9/11 the mere mention that there was something the USA could have done to prevent that attack was anti-american and blaming america for the actions of terrorists. but that was with a GOP president. now, with a democratic president, its a coverup of how he is selling america out to Muslims. ah, sweet double standards!
the timing was as soon as he was re-elected so that this didn't become an election issue, attacking the military. cantor and the GOP has also known about this investigation and its results for some time. obama was planning on booting him but didn't want to look like he was purging the military of possible political competition right before and election.
The ambassador and the Ex Seals called for help 4 times and were denied. Could have have a planeload of marines from Italy there in an hour. I dont care what anyones tries to tell me about this. OUR GOVERNMENT HUNG THEM OUT TO DRY!!! The entire Adminstration is lying and full of bull sheep. Hang them all! The State Dept is responsible for the security of the Embassy. They(she...Hillary) failed and people died. Fire them all, or bend over and get ready for some more Hope and Change. Let me get some more Koolaid for you...Originally Posted by cockerpunk
none of that is actually true (help would have taken 4+ hours by all accounts), and all would have been to late.Originally Posted by Tunaman
the proper call was made, and that was to use the men already on the ground, to push through, and save who they could. they pushed down from the safe-house, into the embassy and saved who they could. this order was made as soon as the walls were breached.
there is a reason the military, petraaus, and most military commentators are saying calm the **** down, because there isn't anything crazy happening here. it was a bad situation, but the best call under the circumstances was made. and thanks to the courage of those men, many lives were saved.
now, were mistakes made? of course, like any fast developing situation that you have a limited knowledge to make decisions on, mistakes get made. that can be said of every battle fraught by any armed service ever. like our frequent warnings about 9/11 before it happened, hindsight is always 20/20.
but to say there is a coverup, and obama "hung them out to dry" is ridiculous.
did bush "hang them out to dry" on and before 9/11? did bush "hang them out to dry" when he invaded iraq on false intelligence data? where was the rage and calling for the heads of our leadership then, a lot more people died in both. oh sorry, there is a democrat in the white house, thats why.
this selective rage is really annoying.
This report states they could have had a spec opps team there within 2 hours:Originally Posted by cockerpunk
And according to this article the fightine went on for more than 4 hours which is enough time for aid to arrive:
Moreover the Ambassador had repedidly requested more forces well before the event and had reported a growing threat against the Americans there.
And finally...our wonderful leader has reported to the UN several times that this wasn't a terrorist attack well after it was proven to be a terrorist attack.
Last edited by wetwrks; 11-14-2012 at 06:44 PM.
1. that is still too lateOriginally Posted by wetwrks
2. its unconfirmed, the source is "fox news" bwahaha
3. it was essentially special forces team that did the extraction that did happen
not saying mistakes weren't made, if we had known when the fight started that they were not going to be able to contain it, of course forces were sent. thats what did happen. they didn't get there soon enough, and they were less then 10 miles away. the pipe dream of some special forces based in another country could beat the guys already on the ground to the scene is ridiculous.
and again, hindsight is always 20/20. where was the rage and the calling for heads when it was shown that bush was actually briefed on the idea that 9/11 was going to happen, and yet did nothing? where is the outrage and calling for heads when bush invaded another country and killed thousands of americans, all for a lie?
let keep our eye on the ball people.
Lets keep our eye on the ball? You are the one who keeps trying to change the subject. This isn't about Bush. This isn't about the original 9/11. This is about the killing of a US Ambassador by terrorists. This is about Obama claiming it was just an accident when all the evidence proved otherwise. This is about requests for aid that were outright refused and thus American lives were just written off as collateral.Originally Posted by cockerpunk
You make accusations against Bush... If what he did was wrong then you should also be screaming against these similar wrongs.
That is the typical lib playbook. It's all Bush's fault.Originally Posted by wetwrks
Yep, that and to try changing the subject instead of arguing the points.Originally Posted by BigEvil
The ambassador wasnt at the embassy, he was at a so called "safe house".
The man knew too much and they wanted him dead, they being the pretender in chief and the thugs he calls his administration.
Doesnt matter, no one will ever swing for this murder.
There will never be another republican in the white house again.
They got away with stealing the election, so it will be done from now on.
Except for the lieutenant colonel, they picked on the wrong guy this time:
Ah politics. Where we throw blame and accusation in front of truth and answers.
Please dear god I hate seeing politics on AO. "Your tearing us all apart!" is what this makes me feel like. Lives were lost, politics have been decided for the time being. What has been done is done, no changing it however much we all wish. Sure a different call could have been made, lives could have been saved, but they weren't and we cant change that from arguments. It may matter that we do our best to prevent that from happening but it is obviously not as simple as it seems. Some of you or the public in general are making it look like a call was made out to a figure of authority no matter who it was but it wasn't as simple as "Hello take a choice, There are Seals and military personnel here along with innocent american citizens, Do you want them to die at no benefit to you or anyone else in this world and have a ton of trouble on your hands or do you want to send in some armed forces and save the day with the public thanking you. All that matters now is that we correct our mistakes and we take the guilty to justice. Nothing more than that. No more pointing fingers because whoever's fault it was knows there mistake and should know that they have created widows and mourning families that have a child with no father. Further blame will not do anything at all but cause a delay of our governments work and arguments among its citizens.
What is this arguing getting you? What is it accomplishing? It will not bring back those who were lost. It will only cause further debate on them and keeping this tragedy fresh in our memory. All any of this is doing (besides bringing those who were responsible for the attack to justice) is putting salt in a wound.
The problem arises in partisinship that is so ridiculous as to hinder any reasonable conversation.
Look at this thread: the posters cannot even agree on one set of facts. Add to it the spin put on by various news outlets and they pick and chose whatever facts they want to. This is not meant to be partisan but anyone who did not know (or should have known) that a destablized middle east would present a threat to our embassies and personal is not fit to lead. I don't buy that our current President is stupid (you don't get to be President by being stupid) so I believe he, and those around him, knew these risks. I also assume they had reasons to not increase security. It worries me that said reasons might have been political.
When discussion leads to indicate a mistake may have been made by a Republican the instant call is "what about (insert whatever Democrat you want)". The same is true in this thread in reverse. How often has defense of our current President consisted of faulting the previous President?
The funny thing about this all is that people think that the two party system actually gives us a lot of choice. Who was the last serious candidate of the two parties for president that was not bought and paid for by special interests? If it is an "us vs them" thing as was suggested in the last campaign the "us" does not include either of those available to vote for.
In reasonable political debate reasonable people can come to differing conclusions however they must be able to have discussion without insisting that whoever they supported before the discussion was right and everyone else was wrong.
I do know this about the situation: An Ambassador is sent to another country to have peaceful and reasonable discourse. When that country kills said ambassador it should tell us what they think of peaceful and reasonable discourse and our response should take that into consideration. "Talk softly but carry a big stick" requires use of that stick when talking fails.
QFT. unfortunately I do not believe this administration will respond this way.Originally Posted by Lohman446
The government is broken.
The two-party political system is broken.
Goldman Sachs owns the whole bunch, both parties.
With Santa Claus as president the only thing left is the crashing of the economy.
it about the selective rage. obama, and everything he does has been subjected to this selective rage. take any other president, doing similar things, and no one bats an eye. but the second obama does something, its impeachable. questioning the president on such matters, according to the right, was anti-maerican, now its a web of conspiracy theories. anotehr great example is healthcare mandate, a GOP idea, penned by the heritage foundation, an idea NEWT GINGRICH supported in the mid-90s, is now all of a sudden fascism. its pathetic.Originally Posted by wetwrks
the rage media has perfected this emotional and visceral reaction.
There was no rage with Bush? Really. Do you honestly believe that or are you that selective about your attention?Originally Posted by cockerpunk
This is why we cannot have adult conversations about this here. Its always "the other side" that is doing things wrong. Both sides display the kind of behavior you rally about and you know it yet you whine when the other side does it. The hypocrisy displayed in these conversations is ridiculous.
When I suggested, in the other thread, that this board was intellectually honest enough to handle political discussion I was wrong.
Last edited by Lohman446; 11-15-2012 at 10:56 AM.
yup, drone strikes are up 100% over bush era levels, and we don't carry a big stick?Originally Posted by MANN
rage media in action.
yes.Originally Posted by Lohman446
funny, i already gave you multiple examples. but if you need more i can provide.
the problem is not maturity, its that we live in a post-factual era. facts no longer matter in politics. if we cannot agree on our facts, we cannot have a reasonable conversation. this is, again, the rage machine in action. facts don't matter, 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions right? obama is weak on terror, you know, despite getting osama (while bush let him into pakastan and refused to chase him), drone strikes up to 2x more then bush era etc etc etcOriginally Posted by Lohman446
the problem is, facts matter. thats what the GOP learned last week. when the rage machine bubble hits reality ... reality wins.
So the facts you argue are correct are correct and the facts others argue are not? First hand knowledge?Originally Posted by cockerpunk
Obama did not get Osama. The brave men and women of our armed forces and intelligence communities did. Obama simply did not stop it.
Was our military incursion into Pakistan legal btw?
Last edited by Lohman446; 11-15-2012 at 11:39 AM.
facts can be verified for accuracy.Originally Posted by Lohman446
obama ordered the strike, while bush refused to chase osama into Pakistan, even when they knew he was escapinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4494937.shtml
no, it was not legal, again, another strike on that whole "obama is weak" he did exactly what he had to, right or wrong, to get osama.
Originally Posted by cockerpunk
How are you verifying your facts? Through first hand accounts of non-vested individuals? The point is your ability to verify facts is as questionable as those who you instantly dismiss.
Where was the outcry from the left about the illegal strike?
The point is you have selective attention if you think that its only the right that has this selective rage and if you cannot see that your egocentricity makes mine look to be a minor quirk.
not true at all. bush's negligence on getting osama is well documented, by first hand accounts and data, and video, etc etc etcOriginally Posted by Lohman446
i don't think anyone had too big of an issue about having to illegally land troops in Pakistan to shoot osama. tell these firefighters that we shouldn't have done it:
i don't personally have any issue with what obama did, nor would i protest if bush had done the same. sometimes what is right, and what is legal are not the same thing. heck, even the Pakistani government wasn't too pissed off. everyone knew we'd do whatever it took to get him.
i think, if you want to claim that last one as a point, you have to come up with examples of selective rage from me. as of yet, you have not.