 |
As far as I recall Reagan didn't send his minions out to lie and protect his a$$ to get reelected. He also challenged Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, precipitated the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and won the cold war. Obama can't even keep his feet out of his mouth.
Let's see the score sheet on war
WWII tick
Korean War??
Vietnam
Cold War tick
War on poverty
War on terror
War on drugs
War in Iraq tick
Well three out of eight ain't bad
You're comparing election campaigns to the Iranian hostages, and 300 dead and wounded American service men?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
DUDE??
As I recall ,Reagan did not blame the bombing on an anti-Mohammed video... or try to cover up the circumstances of the bombing to the American people.
Beirut Memorial On Line - History | Reagan's SpeechQuote:
A little over a year ago hoping to build on the Camp David accords, which had led to peace between Israel and Egypt, I proposed a peace plan for the Middle East to end the wars between the Arab States and Israel- It was based on U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 and called for a fair and just solution to the Palestinian problem, as well as a fair and just settlement of issues between the Arab States and Israel.
Before the necessary negotiations could begin, it was essential to get all foreign forces out of Lebanon and to end the fighting there. So, why are we there? Well, the answer is straightforward: to help bring peace to Lebanon and stability to the vital Middle East. To that end, the multinational force was created to help stabilize the situation in Lebanon until a government could be established and a Lebanese army mobilized to restore Lebanese sovereignty over its own soil as the foreign forces withdrew. Israel agreed to withdraw as did Syria, but Syria then reneged on its promise. Over 10,000 Palestinians who had been bringing ruin down on Beirut, however, did leave the country.
Lebanon has formed a government under the leadership of President Gemayal, and that government, with our assistance and training, has set up its own army. In only a year's time, that army has been rebuilt. It's a good army, composed of Lebanese of all factions.
A few weeks ago, the Israeli army pulled back to the Awali River in southern Lebanon. Despite fierce resistance by Syrian-backed forces, the Lebanese army was able to hold the line and maintain the defensive perimeter around Beirut.
In the year that our Marines have been there, Lebanon has made important steps toward stability and order. The physical presence of the Marines lends support to both the Lebanese Government and its army. It allows the hard work of diplomacy to go forward. Indeed, without the peacekeepers from the U.S. France, Italy, and Britain, the efforts to find a peaceful solution in Lebanon would collapse.
As to that narrower question - what exactly is the operational mission of the Marines- the answer is, to secure a piece of Beirut, to keep order in their sector, and to prevent the area from becoming a battlefield. Our Marines are not just sitting in an airport. Part of their task is to guard that airport. Because of their presence, the airport has remained operational. In addition, they patrol the surrounding area. This is their part - a limited, but essential part - in the larger effort that I've described.
If our Marines must be there, I'm asked, why can't we make them safer? Who committed this latest atrocity against them and why?
Well, we'll do everything we can to ensure that our men are as safe as possible. We ordered the battleship New Jersey to join our naval forces offshore. Without even firing them, the threat of its 16-inch guns silenced those who once fired down on our Marines from the hills, and they're a good part of the reason we suddenly had a cease fire. We're doing our best to make our forces less vulnerable to those who want to snipe at them or send in future suicide missions.
Yes Beirut was bad and eventually we bugged out . But Reagan did not try to cover it up or lie about the circumstances. The American people knew why we were there .
Nice speech by Reagan, but...
1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was after the Iran Contra affair. I guess you are trying to equate Benghazi as the president's Lebanon/Iran/Watergate/Lewinski scandal. Or trying to get your early digs into Hillary's presidential hopes.Quote:
The U.S. Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon. Their withdrawal was completed on February 26, four months after the barracks bombing; the rest of the multinational force was withdrawn by April 1984.
We will see how explosive the House hearings are tomorrow.
Benghazi outrage muted at Libya nominee's hearing - CNN.com
Benghazi Will Totally Be 'The Next Watergate' Unless It Isn't
Iran Contra didn't begin until the summer of 1985
Can't see why anyone would have an issue with Deborah Jones nomination. She is well qualified for the posting .
Quote:
Amb. Jones is the former U.S. ambassador to Kuwait (2008-2011). She is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, having been with the Department of State since 1982. Prior to her assignment as Ambassador, she served as Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Istanbul, Turkey. Her previous overseas assignments include: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Baghdad, Iraq; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Damascus, Syria. Her service in Washington, D.C. includes two years as country director of the Office of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs in addition to assignments as staff assistant to Assistant Secretary for Near East and South Asia Affairs Richard Murphy, acting public affairs adviser to Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs, desk officer for Jordan, and duty in the Department's Operations Center. Ms. Jones has also served on the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Service.
Yes the press will do it's best to sugar coat and run cover for the Obots. This time they can't white wash it.
Hello again, tom:
Blockbuster testimony today.. They're going to reveal that we were attacked... OMG! Who knew?Quote:
This time they can't white wash it.
Excon
Now ex you know bad news travels slow in the corridors of power
They are going to reveal systemic failures in State ,Defense ,Intel and the White House ,before ,during ,and after the attack. They will also reveal an intentional cover-up of the facts because they did not want the truth known during the election cycle.
That is a minimum. Hopefully this will encourage whistle-blowers from CIA and the Defense Dept.to come forth and reveal the purpose of their special mission .
Hello again, tom:
Couple things...Quote:
They will also reveal systemic failures in State ,Defense ,Intel and the White House ,before ,during ,and after the attack. They will also reveal an intentional cover-up of the facts because they did not want the truth known during the election cycle.
Nobody is denying that there were mistakes made.
If they were trying to "cover up" their mistakes, they didn't do a very good job of it because within 3 or 4 days, EVERYBODY knew we were attacked by terrorists.. And, Obama STILL kicked Romney's a$$.
You want the CIA to reveal what they're "special mission" was?? Dude! If you want to call the times we LIE about covert CIA activities a coverup, then the government "covers up" EVERY DAY, and it SHOULD!
Excon
Iranian hostages? They were released when Reagan won the election. I don't know what your point on that is, but the issue is the coverup. It may not bother you if your guy is a lying weasel but this is a BIG deal and it ain't going to be pretty. Your side still only sees it as an election problem to sweep under the rug, protect Hillary at all cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I expect you applauded the revelations to the Church Committee.I expect you applauded the revelations of Iran Contra. What I think CIA will reveal is that the operation in Benghazi was not a CIA Op .It was being run in the basement of the White House ala Ollie North.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I guess you ignored all the links with the facts about Iran. That's okay, we are use to it.
Hello again,
Steve King, that crackerjack right wing congressman, says that if you take Watergate, add Iran Contra to it, and multiply by 10, you've got Benghazi...
Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
excon
Hello again,
Since the git go, you THOUGHT you had Obama by the balls. You THOUGHT Benghazi would be the end of him. Actually, it was more HOPE than thought. But, there's NOTHING there...Quote:
It was being run in the basement of the White House ala Ollie North.
As PROOF, there's a noticeable SHIFT in WHO the bad guy is here, to Hillary Clinton instead of Obama.. I wonder if it has to do with her presidential aspirations.. Nahhh. Republicans wouldn't do that...
Excon
I don't recall comparing Iranian hostages to anything, that was your thing. But I am curious what you're afraid of here, Zero is all about transparency so I'd think you would welcome a little sunshine.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'm not the one shifting to Evita .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You do realize there is still a sap video maker still in jail over this lie ! Talk about someone taking a fall for a false political narrative ! Evita needs to go down too ; but she is just one of the pieces on this chess board.
Hello again, tom:
I don't know what's going on.. Lindsay Graham just said on TV that the blockbuster is the "political spin" Obama put on the attack. He said he was trying to bolster his claim that Al Quaida was decimated...Quote:
Talk about someone taking a fall for a false political narrative ! Evita needs to go down too ; but she is just one of the pieces on this chess board.
Blockbuster??
You also, tom, appear to be talking about POLITICS instead CRIME and COVERUP, and IMPEACHMENT, and SCANDAL.. So, if you want my agreement about the politics, you got it.
Excon
PS> (edited) You have SOME resource for your claim that the CIA was acting like White House plumbers, or something.. Would you SHARE that source?
They maintained the false narrative about a YouTube video for over 2 weeks. They went with this campaign narrative that AQ was on the run ,especially since they wacked OBL... You recall that in the debate about foreign policy Romney brought up the lie ;and Candy Crowley basically lied and said the Emperor called it a terrorist attack... and still they went on with the false narrative for as long as the press could cover for them.Quote:
If they were trying to "cover up" their mistakes, they didn't do a very good job of it because within 3 or 4 days, EVERYBODY knew we were attacked by terrorists.. And, Obama STILL kicked Romney's a$$.
Not only did the Emperor participate in the lie... I'm sure the facts will show he directed it !
The talking points were changed a number of times before Susan Rice hit the Sunday talk shows.
Now as you recall ,Nixon also directed a similar cover up to stall for time before the 1972 election. This is not quite Watergate.. it will not bring the Emperor down. I just want the public to know all the facts because they are key to future foreign policy decisions this "Commander in Chief " will make in the future.
I don't know if or any crimes will be revealed .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Be nice if you could knock Obama down a few pegs before the mid terms and get the high flying ex Sec. of State back to earth before 2016. Benghazi is an attractive rock to throw.
I saw Lindsay and he blasts BO on his light foot print in the middle east. He and McCain, and they want WAR, doesn't matter with who because they have a list. You better let those Arabs handle their own mess.
I agree Tal let the arabs handle their own mess and let the Israeli's handle theirs too
Hello again, tom:
Even IF they did, it's POLITICAL spin - NOT a coverup. I'm sure Frank Luntz said to use the "cover up" words, just like he told you to use the "government takeover" words..Quote:
They maintained the false narrative about a YouTube video for over 2 weeks.
You say Nixon did the same thing.. NO he didn't. He covered up a CRIME.
Excon
LOL, Barack has already knocked himself down a few pegs, and if you don't want WAR you might ask your Emperor to stop ad-libbing his way into one.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Again ,it remains to be seen if there was a crime. I guess there was no purpose for the 9-11 Commission . Why should the American people know where the break down was ,or if there was one. Maybe not a cover up... who knows ? Maybe just a stone wall. I called it a 'white wash 'Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
White wash is common in the arab world
Hello again, tom:
Oh, I'm all for finding out WHO made mistakes, and ferreting them out.Quote:
Why should the American people know where the break down was ,or if there was one.
But, when Issa says that there's "No question" Clinton's circle is INVOLVED in the Benghazi "cover-up", he's NOT looking for answers. He's conducting a witch hunt..
Excon
Obama and Hillary both need to go to jail over Benghazigate. 4 people died over their gross incompetence.
It wasn't a cover up .It was a blatant lie to the American people that they repeated for as long as they could get away with it. If there is a cover up ,it is in State Dept.(Accountability Review Board's lies ) But
I'm looking for more . I want at least a special committee appointed ,if not a special prosecutor . There are accountability issues that demand answers from the military chain of command. Who told the special forces in Tripoli to stand down as they were boarding a plane to Benghazi.. less than 2 hrs away (more than enough time to be there in the 2nd wave of attacks )? Who told the commander in Aviano Italy to not deploy his F-16s and apache helicopters (they could've made the court yard a litter of dead enemy jihadists )? A “FAST team” (Fleet Anti-terrorism Security team) of Marines from Rota, Spain, were sent to guard the Embassy in Tripoli ,but not assist where they were needed .
A Special Operations force was moved from central Europe to Sigonella Air Base in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi ,but were not sent into action
Asked why the military did not do more, Sec Def Leon Panetta said the 'first rule in such a situation is not to deploy troops into harm's way unless there is a clear picture of what is happening'. Here was the picture he needed . A US ambassador called screaming that the compound was under attack . There were CIA ops and special forces ops on the scene reporting the nature of the attack up the chain of command.In fact an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up was made during the attack. Now either the chain of command made the call on their own not to assist... OR the White House made the call . Someone made the call . WE the people need to know who .
The Obots want to avoid responsibility for this .Why was the FBI given the lead ? Why was the cite of the attack not secured to prevent compromising evidence and loss of possible intelligence information? The FBI didn't make it there for weeks after the attack! How is it that CNN managed to get there are recover Ambassador Stevens journal but the FBI couldn't ? Too many unanswered questions for this one posting . But all questions we need to know the truth about.
Hello again, tom:
No, it wasn't..Quote:
It wasn't a cover up .
I'd like to know the answer to those questions too, but Issa isn't the one to ask them. I'd support a special commission.
But, to repeat what you're saying. There's no crime, no coverup, no scandal, no underhandedness at ALL, UNLESS it can be proven in front of an unbiased committee or court of law. Until that time, all the talk about WATER/BENGHAZIGATE, is nothing more than Republicans flapping their gums..
Excon
It this wasn't a coverup... then Watergate wasn't either.
Just a bit of logic to go with the politics. Why would you spend all that money to protect many embassies and have one lone guy go to what he knew was a low security mission, on a day they had been gearing up for all along?
And your retort and outrage is to take those guys from the embassy and run to the mission? Where does that leave the embassy? He should have been in Tripoli on this particular 9/11. They all should have been.
I mean we already know Benghazi was a poor security risk, and maybe Hillary doesn't want to admit he had orders to get where its safe and get your head down. Sorry but the decision to even be in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 was a bad decision for any reason and it had tragic results.
Sadly his faith in the his Libyan friends was misplaced because when tested they ran.
What's more sad is he had faith in his own State dept and government... Ultimately that's who was responsible for their security and safety. Not Libya.
Owebama couldn't have cared less... and the Sec of State Hillary was drunk as a skunk... neither of those were acceptable.
THe outright lies that followed deserve legal action against those responsible for NOT doing anything.
It was the height of arrogance for them to think most people would believe it was some dumb U-tube video... only the pathetic crowd bought into that lame excuse.
Why indeed?. now you are getting closer to where I'm at .What would be so important that he would travel to a place he knew was a risk (it had been attacked before )... This after he begged for more protection ;to meet with a Turkish representative in secret ? What did a Turkish rep have to do with Libya ? Could it be that he was funnelling Libyan weapons to anti-Assad rebels (jiihadists ) through Turkey ?Quote:
Just a bit of logic to go with the politics. Why would you spend all that money to protect many embassies and have one lone guy go to what he knew was a low security mission, on a day they had been gearing up for all along?
And your retort and outrage is to take those guys from the embassy and run to the mission? Where does that leave the embassy? He should have been in Tripoli on this particular 9/11. They all should have been.
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider
And Watergate was nothing but a two-bit burglaryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
And this is perhaps the most important angle to cover on the hearings...
Fair enough . Found this article in October by former CIA Claire Lopez .It is properly linked with major news outlet reports as her sources. She just connects the dots .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Family Security Matters
I also think CIA and our counter-terrorism czar (who is now the CIA Director) John Brennan were not on the same page in Libya. While Petraeus and Stevens had a relationship with groups that were involved in the exchange of weapons; Brennan was using Joint Special Operations Command assets throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia striking at the same groups that Stevens was dealing with. I believe that retailation for one of these strikes was the real motivation for the attack on Stevens.
Hello...
HELLO... The blockbuster hearing happened... How come you're not crowing about the coverup that was revealed?
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:57 PM. |