quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Yet no hearings and all those dead American GIs

You are mistaken. Those are dead marines...not the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Tried to pretend?Projecting...much?

When he found out that wasn`t the case,he said so...

Even fox news said they thought that was the case...

He was going by the best intel at the time....

This sinister narrative that he purposely let Americans die or tried to cover up something is not credible.....

But of course if one is in to pretending.....facts,the record and history don`t play a big role.

quote:

Even if you were right about the marine barracks are you saying that if one person gets away with something we can never hold anyone else accountable for doing it, that would mean all laws are now null and void.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Even if you were right about the marine barracks are you saying that if one person gets away with something we can never hold anyone else accountable for doing it, that would mean all laws are now null and void.

It seems to me that was pretty much the arguement made in the house of commons concerning the tea in boston harbor...so I am unclear as to your point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Even if you were right about the marine barracks are you saying that if one person gets away with something we can never hold anyone else accountable for doing it, that would mean all laws are now null and void.

It seems to me that was pretty much the arguement made in the house of commons concerning the tea in boston harbor...so I am unclear as to your point.

He has presented a distorted image of what happened in Lebanon and implying that this proves a lack of a cover up in Libya. He also implies that since there were no hearings concerning that distorted view there should be no hearings now. I am saying that even if his warped view of that incident were correct it would not give Obama and company a pass. Don't see why you would have trouble following that point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Tried to pretend?Projecting...much?
When he found out that wasn`t the case,he said so...
Even fox news said they thought that was the case...
He was going by the best intel at the time....
This sinister narrative that he purposely let Americans die or tried to cover up something is not credible.....
But of course if one is in to pretending.....facts,the record and history don`t play a big role.

So, from the get-go, he was all about "this was a terrorist attack?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Benghazi and Lebanon were two different beasts, and quite frankly, Lebanon was much worse. The GOP are trying to make a mountain out of Libya (and citing Fox News as a source is pretty bloody dubious, Fox News reported 12 dead at the Boston Marathon, they said it was the work of Al Qaeda, and oh yeah, still insist Hussein had WMD's and for a year after we invaded Iraq, insisted they were part of 9/11..real factual) because they are losing on so many fronts, young people think the GOP are a bunch of bible thumping rednecks, the GOP congress has an 18% approval rating, the tea party has driven people out of voting for the GOP, and their ideological rigidity has made them look childish and stupid. When the speaker of the house cannot deliver after agreeing to a budget with the white house, it makes them look like it is loony central..so they are looking for any kind of dirty to throw on Obama they can, because they know if he stays relatively popular, and the economy keeps at least appearing to be recovering, they will get their ass handed to them in 2016, too. They tried the birther nonsense, they tried the socialist label, they tried to claim Obama care was unpopular, and it all failed..so they are left with Benghazi. It was a fuck up, I don't doubt it, but whether Obama called it terrorism or not initially, didn't change that it happened. Arguing that because it was terrorism and therefore Obama had to know is fraught, because then you can argue that Bush should have known 9/11 was going to happen, because they had specific warnings, about Arabs taking flight lessons not wanting to know how to land, chatter all over the place..and the answer is, that the incident in Benghazi, while it was tragic, was not foretold, there wasn't the warning the GOP wants everyone to believe, it was a fuck up in the country was disintegrating, but guess what, happens all over, we had embassies bombed in Kenya and Saudi, how come there was no howling then? Reminds me of all the crap about how Clinton refused to go after Osama Bin Laden after the Stark was hit, same kind of drivel.

The difference with Lebanon was that what happened there was a gigantic military fuckup, and Reagan was to blame as commander in chief. The Seal Team Six members there refused to stay in the barracks building, they saw it for the trap it was, they knew there were militias in the hills above the area, and they also knew the orders to be unarmed was absolutely idiotic (read Chuck Pfarrers memoirs, really enlightening). They had several company of marines in close quarters (to get 269 killed, they must have had 6 or 7 hundred Marines in their, in close quarters) in combat conditions, which every person I know who served in the military, including 20 year marines who served in Vietnam and Korea, said was criminal. They had unarmed sentries (lebanese, mind you) guarding the barracks...... putting troops into combat conditions like that, surrounded by enemies, sending Marinese on patrol unarmed, was criminal stupidity, and Reagan as CIC gave those orders. You can argue Benghazi was a fuck up, but take a look at Lebanon, what led to the tragedy, and what you see is literally folly, something that was so obvious and they ignored it, and it wasn't hindsight. Conservatives argued it was the UN's fault, but that is horseshit, those were US military under US military command, not UN troops.

And yeah, Reagan never did jack shit, the only ones who struck back were ironically the French, they took out the Hezbollah headquarters, they wiped out a lot of people in revenge for what had happened, whereas Reagan did absolutely nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

Benghazi and Lebanon were two different beasts, and quite frankly, Lebanon was much worse. The GOP are trying to make a mountain out of Libya (and citing Fox News as a source is pretty bloody dubious, Fox News reported 12 dead at the Boston Marathon, they said it was the work of Al Qaeda, and oh yeah, still insist Hussein had WMD's and for a year after we invaded Iraq, insisted they were part of 9/11..real factual) because they are losing on so many fronts, young people think the GOP are a bunch of bible thumping rednecks, the GOP congress has an 18% approval rating, the tea party has driven people out of voting for the GOP, and their ideological rigidity has made them look childish and stupid. When the speaker of the house cannot deliver after agreeing to a budget with the white house, it makes them look like it is loony central..so they are looking for any kind of dirty to throw on Obama they can, because they know if he stays relatively popular, and the economy keeps at least appearing to be recovering, they will get their ass handed to them in 2016, too. They tried the birther nonsense, they tried the socialist label, they tried to claim Obama care was unpopular, and it all failed..so they are left with Benghazi. It was a fuck up, I don't doubt it, but whether Obama called it terrorism or not initially, didn't change that it happened. Arguing that because it was terrorism and therefore Obama had to know is fraught, because then you can argue that Bush should have known 9/11 was going to happen, because they had specific warnings, about Arabs taking flight lessons not wanting to know how to land, chatter all over the place..and the answer is, that the incident in Benghazi, while it was tragic, was not foretold, there wasn't the warning the GOP wants everyone to believe, it was a fuck up in the country was disintegrating, but guess what, happens all over, we had embassies bombed in Kenya and Saudi, how come there was no howling then? Reminds me of all the crap about how Clinton refused to go after Osama Bin Laden after the Stark was hit, same kind of drivel.

The difference with Lebanon was that what happened there was a gigantic military fuckup, and Reagan was to blame as commander in chief. The Seal Team Six members there refused to stay in the barracks building, they saw it for the trap it was, they knew there were militias in the hills above the area, and they also knew the orders to be unarmed was absolutely idiotic (read Chuck Pfarrers memoirs, really enlightening). They had several company of marines in close quarters (to get 269 killed, they must have had 6 or 7 hundred Marines in their, in close quarters) in combat conditions, which every person I know who served in the military, including 20 year marines who served in Vietnam and Korea, said was criminal. They had unarmed sentries (lebanese, mind you) guarding the barracks...... putting troops into combat conditions like that, surrounded by enemies, sending Marinese on patrol unarmed, was criminal stupidity, and Reagan as CIC gave those orders. You can argue Benghazi was a fuck up, but take a look at Lebanon, what led to the tragedy, and what you see is literally folly, something that was so obvious and they ignored it, and it wasn't hindsight. Conservatives argued it was the UN's fault, but that is horseshit, those were US military under US military command, not UN troops.

And yeah, Reagan never did jack shit, the only ones who struck back were ironically the French, they took out the Hezbollah headquarters, they wiped out a lot of people in revenge for what had happened, whereas Reagan did absolutely nothing.

Then of course, we found out that st.ronnie was illegally selling hi-tech weapons to the folks behind the murders of our men.....Iran.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Even if you were right about the marine barracks are you saying that if one person gets away with something we can never hold anyone else accountable for doing it, that would mean all laws are now null and void.

It seems to me that was pretty much the arguement made in the house of commons concerning the tea in boston harbor...so I am unclear as to your point.

He has presented a distorted image of what happened in Lebanon and implying that this proves a lack of a cover up in Libya. He also implies that since there were no hearings concerning that distorted view there should be no hearings now. I am saying that even if his warped view of that incident were correct it would not give Obama and company a pass. Don't see why you would have trouble following that point.

My comment was not addressed at your point it was addressed at your post. Would you mind addressing my point?

quote:

Didn't count, he couldn't remember it, so it never happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

You and your party`s lack of specifics about that, tell us you`re full of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The one who`s talking points you repeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


It's hard to get too spun up about "the editing process." What is upsetting is how the US diplomats in Libya asked for more protection and they did not get it. Part of the problem has been a Congress that does not want to fund such protections. Another part of the problem is the fog of war and the risks of setting up shop in an unstable country.

Maybe if the US wasn't so mired in IRAQ and Afghanistan -- we'd have more resources to protect embassy and consulate staff ---.