The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 165

Thread: Benghazi

  1. #121
    Senior Member HuntClub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Washington County, Mn
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Let's get this straight, is Obama to blame for terrorists attacking the consulate? No. Is his administration at fault for not protecting the consulate as it should have been? Probably, and there are many reasons for that. The real problem here, and I think some people are losing sight of this, is not that Bengazhi happened (terrorist attacks happen and will continue to, we can only learn from this and do better) is that a story was put out and endorsed many times over weeks and weeks as fact that it was a spontaneous attack and not a terrorist planned op. Which, by the best intelligence, we have learned, was reported as a coordinated terrorist attack by our operatives on the ground in Benghazi. So ask yourself, no, really, ask yourself why would the best intelligence be cast aside in favor of the spontaneous protest story. Whether it was done by the CIA, the Obama administration, or the State Dept, my opinion was it was clearly done for political reason. That's where the accountability lies. That is what is important. What difference does it make? Good one, right? It makes a difference in that we cannot have, nor should we tolerate lies from our highest level officials in government, which are espoused for purely political gain. Sure, it happens all the time......but we need to stop accepting it. I really get a kick out of some of you people on here, spewing babbling jokes about the "farces of the Republicans". Do you really prefer any party to do whatever they want and not be questioned on those actions? I think we need more of that, left or right or whatever, bring on the investigations.
    Jonathon

    “Write your own book instead of reading someone else’s book about success” H. Brooks

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuntClub View Post
    Let's get this straight, is Obama to blame for terrorists attacking the consulate? No. Is his administration at fault for not protecting the consulate as it should have been? Probably, and there are many reasons for that. The real problem here, and I think some people are losing sight of this, is not that Bengazhi happened (terrorist attacks happen and will continue to, we can only learn from this and do better) is that a story was put out and endorsed many times over weeks and weeks as fact that it was a spontaneous attack and not a terrorist planned op. Which, by the best intelligence, we have learned, was reported as a coordinated terrorist attack by our operatives on the ground in Benghazi. So ask yourself, no, really, ask yourself why would the best intelligence be cast aside in favor of the spontaneous protest story. Whether it was done by the CIA, the Obama administration, or the State Dept, my opinion was it was clearly done for political reason. That's where the accountability lies. That is what is important. What difference does it make? Good one, right? It makes a difference in that we cannot have, nor should we tolerate lies from our highest level officials in government, which are espoused for purely political gain. Sure, it happens all the time......but we need to stop accepting it. I really get a kick out of some of you people on here, spewing babbling jokes about the "farces of the Republicans". Do you really prefer any party to do whatever they want and not be questioned on those actions? I think we need more of that, left or right or whatever, bring on the investigations.
    Good post HuntClub

  3. #123
    Senior Member Henlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,164

    Default

    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/b...4/benghazi.pdf


    Found this and thought it was interesting.
    Ole and Sven are quietly sitting in a boat fishing, chewing and drinking beer when suddenly Sven says, 'I think I'm gonna divorce my wife - she ain't spoke to me in over 2 months.' Ole sips his beer and says, 'Better think it over...women like that are hard to find.'

  4. #124
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,400

    Default

    Jon, you did hit the nail on the head. Any errors in judgment that led to the Benghazi incident might have generated some ire, but most would realize that human error happens. The real ire came from the lying, and some from the fact that it revealed how ill-prepared the military was for such a situation, in spite of quick-response groups supposedly designed for just such emergencies.The military can make adjustments, and hopefully they will.

    From all indications, the families of those who lost their lives feel this way. The families were prepared for the dangers of the jobs their sons had, but they were more offended by not being told the truth.

    It is much harder to overcome a culture of lying to the public to be "fixed." Would also agree, if we've been stupid enough to allow such a culture to grow over time, that doesn't mean that we should remain silent as it gets worse and worse.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Shine...you just keep repeating the lies....what 'personal vendetta'? Also, you just keep skipping over the facts that Congress, including Dem's authorized the President to act....

    The facts just keep getting in the way of your story!
    check this out wise one. This is the vendetta I am talking about. Bush Jr. went after Saddam in retaliation over a failed assasination attempt of Old man Bush.
    http://hnn.us/article/1000

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Here's another. Jr stated in an '02 campaign speech that Hussein was the one that tried to kill his dad.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm
    tell me I'm lying there Swampy. He went after Saddam over a personal vendetta. No lies, it's the truth.
    Last edited by james durfee; 04-04-2014 at 03:20 PM.

  7. #127
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    Not so wise one - Shine....that is the problem..you believe any damn article you read that fits into your twisted view of the world....

    You do recall at the end of the Iraq war I, Iraq signed a surrender agreement with us that included a no-fly zone and leaving the Kurd s alone! Saddam constantly broke that agreement including killing many Kurds, thumbing his nose at the USA. That coupled with the intelligence from both the US and from our allies indicated Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction. (Did you sleep through all of this?)

    Based on those facts, Congress (including all but a few Dem's) authorized Bush to act....he did! End of story!

    Of course as soon as we got into the country and found no weapons the Liberal Media followed by the Congressional Dem's started blaming Bush....nice try!

    THEY ALL OWNED IT! NOT JUST BUSH, AND NOT FOR ANY PERSONAL AGENDA! NUFF SAID!

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Not so wise one - Shine....that is the problem..you believe any damn article you read that fits into your twisted view of the world....

    You do recall at the end of the Iraq war I, Iraq signed a surrender agreement with us that included a no-fly zone and leaving the Kurd s alone! Saddam constantly broke that agreement including killing many Kurds, thumbing his nose at the USA. That coupled with the intelligence from both the US and from our allies indicated Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction. (Did you sleep through all of this?)

    Based on those facts, Congress (including all but a few Dem's) authorized Bush to act....he did! End of story!

    Of course as soon as we got into the country and found no weapons the Liberal Media followed by the Congressional Dem's started blaming Bush....nice try!

    THEY ALL OWNED IT! NOT JUST BUSH, AND NOT FOR ANY PERSONAL AGENDA! NUFF SAID!
    And you dismiss any article that you don't believe. Can you come up with any information that says he didn't have a personal vendetta with Saddam. Do a little digging of your own, he made it pretty clear that he had a personal issue with Saddam. The other problem was that not one of the terrorists in 9/11 were from Iraq. Iraq didn't really pose any threat to us. Gives more credence to the vendetta because Saddam was thumbing his nose at Bush.

  9. #129
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    2,468

    Default

    Shine....I stated historical facts.....you look it up....hell I lived it!

    If he hated Saddam or not is irrelevant....I think our President hated Hitler at the time of WWII also, but we did not go to war over that. Since I am not suggesting that going to war was the right thing to do, your comments on "no reason to go to war' are irrelevant to this discussion. I am saying that the Congress and all of our allies believed the Intel on weapons, that coupled with the Kurds and disregard for the surrender terms was enough at the time to convince everyone to go to war.

    As I said I did not agree with the war, but I never believed any of the junk about him telling lies, to except that story you have to believe that the French, Brits, Canada, Aussies, etc. went to war with us based on what Bush said....that is totally unlikely....they ALL went into that war with eyes open....based on the Intel, breach of surrender agreement, murdering the Kurds, and ignoring the no fly zone....

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,276

    Default

    Do you think that the administration could've cooked the books so everybody thought the intel was legit, to get his personal agenda pushed through? Possible scenario. The govt gets accused of cooking the books regularly, so why would this not be a possibility to attack Iraq so Bush could carry out his personal vendetta?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •