Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Quote:What you describe here could also be grounds for putting boots in Iran, but that never happened. The reason we were given for going in was WMDs. It was a lie. And nobody spent tens of millions of dollars questioning him about it.
Actually initially it was about an imminent threat of wmds. Then it was about them not allowing inspections. Once inspections were performed and nothing found it became about liberating the Iraqi people. All along they were pushing the connection between saddam and al Qaeda that simply did not exist. Fact is, they just wanted to invade Iraq. Turned out great so far.
The right people got filthy rich though and really isn't that what America is all about?
Don't be unpatriotic. We needed to spend over $750M on an embassy building in Baghdad. If some contractors who happen to go quail hunting with the VP got paid in the process, that's just coincidence.
It's funny how a discussion of Benghazi turns into B-B-B-Bush!
It's like you guys are part of Barry's staff.
Wow, with some hesitation I'll wade back into this:
WMD's were fund in Iraq. Check the NY Times story about by CJ Chivers, 10/14/2014. Mustard and nerve agents were found in shells and bombs.
Quite a few WMD's were moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
There were other reason for the US invasion of Iraq also.
Iraqi forces fired on US aircraft in the "no fly zones" for months prior to the invasion. That is an act of war. It happened many, many times.
Radar lock alone is considered an act of war. My younger brother was on some of those flights.
Saddam was training and funding terror operations. There was a terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak. The camp was complete with an airliner for training, class rooms and barracks. I saw this myself.
Lastly, personally I do not think the US should have invaded Iraq. However, I cannot let the BS about "no WMD's" and "all for Haliburton profits" go unchecked because it's just not true.
We were talking about politicians lying. Assuming Hillary did, the discussion turned to what it would be like if we held all political figures accountable for their lies with public hearings. I have posted ad nauseum about how other embassies have been attacked in similar fashion, but was told everything is different in this case because an ambassador was killed (one she hand selected and grieved over, but who cares). Ambassador's lives are at the very least more important than 64 other American lives.
Quote:Wow, with some hesitation I'll wade back into this:
WMD's were fund in Iraq. Check the NY Times story about by CJ Chivers, 10/14/2014. Mustard and nerve agents were found in shells and bombs.
Quite a few WMD's were moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
There were other reason for the US invasion of Iraq also.
Iraqi forces fired on US aircraft in the "no fly zones" for months prior to the invasion. That is an act of war. It happened many, many times.
Radar lock alone is considered an act of war. My younger brother was on some of those flights.
Saddam was training and funding terror operations. There was a terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak. The camp was complete with an airliner for training, class rooms and barracks. I saw this myself.
Lastly, personally I do not think the US should have invaded Iraq. However, I cannot let the [BAD WORD REMOVED] about "no WMD's" and "all for Haliburton profits" go unchecked because it's just not true.
The threat we were told about was that there were rockets able to reach American soil. What you describe is similar to what Chemical Ali used. We made bin Laden the face of terror and attacked Hussein.
Kotite,
Everything I wrote is 100% true.
Should the US have invaded? I think not and how it was sold the public is a whole other discussion that I do not care to delve into.
I was simply responding to those that wrote " no WMD's " and only invaded for "profit" because those are nonsense.
My thoughts about HRC and the embassy attack are as follows:
Embassies are attacked at an all too regular basis. Attacks/attempted attacks have been pretty consistent since the early 70's.
My objections to this particular attack is the response by those appointed to keep embassies safe and to explain when things go bad.
HRC claimed over and over again to the American public that some obscure video was the cause of the attack. At the same time, HRC informed her daughter, the Egyptian president and Libyan president that it was a terror attack.
HRC coldly and cruelly stood over the caskets of the dead and explained to the families that it was the video.
I 'm also amazed that HRC's lies about this were exposed and the media still touted her "performance" at the hearing as a success.
Lastly, I truly believe there was a stand down order given to rescue forces by someone. I believe this because one of the SEALS painted the attackers positions with a laser. That would have immediately given away his position. I'm certain he would not have used that laser unless he thought or knew help was inbound.
We'll never find out who issued the stand down order or why but I firmly believe there was one issued.
The threat we were told about was the proliferation of wmds in an age where all you need is a plane ticket a passport or a trip to mexico in order to kill thousands of americans
Quote:The threat we were told about was the proliferation of wmds in an age where all you need is a plane ticket a passport or a trip to mexico in order to kill thousands of americans
And look how much good it's done. North Korea probably still has nukes, Iran may yet get them, Pakistan and India are constantly minutes away from turning each other into glow-in-the-dark parking lots, and one could still easily kill thousands of Americans with nothing more than a plane ticket or a dirty bomb on the beach in Tijuana.
Edit to elaborate on the plane tickets, since I suspect I'll be challenged on the basis of TSA and air marshals:
The TSA routinely fails audits in which fake guns, fake knives, lead pipes, even mock bombs are taken through security. Those highly-vaunted microwave ovens you get to go through and be digitally strip-searched in? Even before the "Gumby" software was installed, they were still comically easy to defeat. I've inadvertently done so myself with a small Swiss Army Knife on a couple of occasions. I've taken multi-tools through in my carry-on, multi-tools with knives on them, multiple times. I'm to the point where I have a cheap, throwaway multi-tool and, if I'm traveling for work and not checking a bag, I'll just place it in my carry-on and accept that I might lose it. So far, I haven't.
Air marshals are hilarious. Want to know how easy it is to find out if there's one on your flight? If your airline allows it, book seat 2D. If the seat displays as open and it won't let you book it, FAM. If the seat is reassigned during check-in, FAM. If you're flying on a cattle-car airline and a guy who is apparently uninjured and carrying a black bag is quietly allowed on prior to or with preboard passengers, the smart money says you'll see him in seat 2D when you get on. FAM. I'm an infrequent business traveler at this point, I mean the country no harm, and I know exactly how to spot a FAM getting onto a plane. This country is that lazy about its "security".
Point being, the "war on terror" has accomplished nothing other than getting a lot of people killed on both sides and stripping Americans of their rights and dignity. Oh, and padding the pockets of a handful of people who were filthy rich going in. Hillary Clinton lied about what happened in Benghazi, and she should face consequences for it. I don't believe she's fit to be President regardless of what happened there. But you cannot argue with a straight face that special committees and inquests into Benghazi are justified, while special committees and inquests into 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan are not needed.
Know why there's been so much buzz about Benghazi and none about the events leading up to it over the last 15 years? Because the main face behind Benghazi is a popular Democrat running for President, and the body "investigating" it is loaded with Republicans who recognize that they have no viable candidate to run against her. That same party has no interest in staining itself by calling for new investigations into old profiteering and war crimes. They're too busy putting together "special committees" (i.e., doing nothing while making it look like they care) about Planned Parenthood.
Quote:Kotite,
Everything I wrote is 100% true.
Should the US have invaded? I think not and how it was sold the public is a whole other discussion that I do not care to delve into.
I was simply responding to those that wrote " no WMD's " and only invaded for "profit" because those are nonsense.
My thoughts about HRC and the embassy attack are as follows:
Embassies are attacked at an all too regular basis. Attacks/attempted attacks have been pretty consistent since the early 70's.
My objections to this particular attack is the response by those appointed to keep embassies safe and to explain when things go bad.
HRC claimed over and over again to the American public that some obscure video was the cause of the attack. At the same time, HRC informed her daughter, the Egyptian president and Libyan president that it was a terror attack.
HRC coldly and cruelly stood over the caskets of the dead and explained to the families that it was the video.
I 'm also amazed that HRC's lies about this were exposed and the media still touted her "performance" at the hearing as a success.
Lastly, I truly believe there was a stand down order given to rescue forces by someone. I believe this because one of the SEALS painted the attackers positions with a laser. That would have immediately given away his position. I'm certain he would not have used that laser unless he thought or knew help was inbound.
We'll never find out who issued the stand down order or why but I firmly believe there was one issued.
I don't dispute it. But mustard gas is hardly a nuclear warhead or a "dirty bomb" that Americans need to worry about being launched from Iraq. As mentioned earlier, Benghazi was not designated as a full time embassy and was not held to the same type of security standards as other embassies which made it especially vulnerable. When you couple that with an ongoing war which drained our coffers and forced politicians to cut embassy security funding, it makes managing those risks difficult. Was HRC still responsible for doing the best she could with what she had? Absolutely. The attack occurred in an election season which I feel influenced how things were framed in how this was presented to the American people. I don't excuse HRC for wearing a political hat and framing a narrative which was intended to place a terrible situation in a less incriminating light. That said, politicians framing narratives to place themselves in a better light than what is entirely truthful is older than George Burns. The mock outrage that accompanied this tragedy was beyond absurd. The right knew they caught HRC trying to sugarcoat a turd and pretended to be SO concerned about these people and this situation because they saw an opportunity to damage Obama's chance of re-election (as if Mitt Romney had a chance) while also attacking the biggest perceived threat in the next major election. They didn't care about American lives. Otherwise they would have had a tenth of the outrage when those other attacks took place. They saw an opportunity. My biggest issue with this recent breed of Republicans is that they have completely lost their way. The GOP used to be the party of ideas. Since Obama took office all they have done is attack and stall. This hearing is just another waste of time and money. I do not believe HRC had any credible evidence of an imminent attack or that they had enough time once the attack was underway to stop it. The comments about the SEAL and the laser pointer are really sad. He may have been hoping for a rescue that was never coming, but I do not believe anyone was close enough to deflect this attack once the embassy was swarmed.
Sorry you find them sad but they are true. I guarantee that brave soul would not have used the laser on a "hope" that help was coming.
You don't do that . You only paint a target if you are sure someone or something is inbound, otherwise it will cost you dearly. In this case it cost him his life.
The attack took hours to unfold. There are assets that could have been there within 1 1/2 hour tops.
It makes me furious that these folks begged for help and none arrived.
Thanks for the reasoned discussion. You have given me some things to research and some to think about.
The level of ignorance in this thread amazes me. I say that not to be rude or disrespectful, but more as a reflection on how people seem to have "selective memories" when it comes down to how events unfolded and why.
I also find it kind of disturbing that there are some people that really think that our government could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
As far as the attacks in Bengahazi, I still get very angry that the evidence was there that it was coming, yet it was ignored. I also get angry when I look at the people that are supposedly our leaders deny what happened and outright lied to us about it.
Quote:I also find it kind of disturbing that there are some people that really think that our government could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.
Bush had been told that there was an Al Qaeda plot to hijack American planes. The FBI also knew of students at a flight school they suspected of ties to Bin Laden (citing him by name), and recommended an immediate review of all flight schools nationwide to find out if anyone else was involved. Want more? FBI agents in Minnesota were aware of a Middle Eastern flight school student who was planning to crash a hijacked plane into the WTC.
So, to recap, the Bush administration was aware of an Al Qaeda plot to hijack airliners. They were also aware of a handful of Middle Eastern students in American flight schools with ties to Bin Laden, and another who was believed to be plotting to crash a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center. To any American with a shred of common sense, that's more than enough information to, at the very least, detain all of the flight school students under suspicion and bring their family, friends and acquaintances in for questioning. George W. Bush had all the information he needed to be aware of the 9/11 plot and prevent it from happening. For whatever reason, his administration willfully ignored that information and used the attacks as justification for starting multiple wars that have been great for the bank accounts of several senior Bush staffers, their families and the companies they sat on the board of.
What does the w in george w bush stand for?
Quote:Bush had been told that there was an Al Qaeda plot to hijack American planes. The FBI also knew of students at a flight school they suspected of ties to Bin Laden (citing him by name), and recommended an immediate review of all flight schools nationwide to find out if anyone else was involved. Want more? FBI agents in Minnesota were aware of a Middle Eastern flight school student who was planning to crash a hijacked plane into the WTC.
So, to recap, the Bush administration was aware of an Al Qaeda plot to hijack airliners. They were also aware of a handful of Middle Eastern students in American flight schools with ties to Bin Laden, and another who was believed to be plotting to crash a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center. To any American with a shred of common sense, that's more than enough information to, at the very least, detain all of the flight school students under suspicion and bring their family, friends and acquaintances in for questioning. George W. Bush had all the information he needed to be aware of the 9/11 plot and prevent it from happening. For whatever reason, his administration willfully ignored that information and used the attacks as justification for starting multiple wars that have been great for the bank accounts of several senior Bush staffers, their families and the companies they sat on the board of.
Can you quote reliable sources for this?
Better yet he still hasnt linked sadam as a part of the plot
While they make a great outline in hindsight of dots that could have been connected, both articles point out that at no time was there a when or where attributed to any of the tgreat assesments. The most specific intel came in 4 weeks prior to the attacks and still only involved a handful of potential conspirators. To put that in perspective, the obama intel team had dorevt actionable intelligence on the bin laden compound and it took them longer than 4 weeks.
Given the fact that the bush administration was in transition s charge of general negligence would be hard to make and the assertion of willful profit motive is beyond the pail of reasonable analyses.
Still waiting to here how many shares of haliburton stock they promised sadam post execution.
When I was in college, one of the movies which was in heavy rotation in my house was JFK. Though I was not alive for that assassination or Pearl Harbor, I consider 9/11 to be a tragedy of equal proportion. I mentioned the film JFK as it made me more skeptical of blindly believing every line that comes from government leaders immediately following these types of events. I was about a mile from the Pentagon when it got hit. Seeing the smoke rising up on that cloudless, sunny day and hearing the jets scramble to provide air cover is a memory which I will never lose. So starting on 9/12 I started collecting newspapers everyday and took lunch every day based around the announced press conferences of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc. I distinctly remember the story being built to support an attack of Iraq. It smelled fishy and deliberate from day 1. It made no sense as every paper touted OBL as the mastermind behind the attack. Why were we going back to finish what we should have finished years before when the Iraqi army rolled over in record time? Every press conference was promoting the same story. Here are satellite pics of bunkers.. they could be housing weapons. Here are pics of aluminum tubes.. the same type used to enrich uranium. Here's an unfounded rumor about uranium shopping in Niger.. the WH only promoted stories that supported the story they were manufacturing and buried any evidence they got which contradicted it. In Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, he calls Powell out directly saying he "decided to add his personal interpretation of Iraqi intercepts to the rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light.. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of 'forbidden ammo' Powell took the interpretation further: 'Clean out all of the areas.. Make sure nothing is there' " Sounds threatening, but it was not part of the actual intercept (translation: made up). Powell took evidence of Iraqis doing what they were told to do (searching for huge ammunition dumps to confirm they were not holding on to banned chemical weapons) and doctored the translation to make it appear they were indeed hiding them. Omitting other evidence that Iraqis were complying with orders only strengthened the argument for attacking. What really made me angry years later, was Powell was the only one I marginally believed at the time. I didn't trust anything Rumsfeld, Ashcroft or Cheney said. The nation was afraid. They were angry. And they were having their focus deliberately led away from Afghanistan and into Iraq.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12