A thought on the lack of outrage/action over Benghazi

That's what it is. The poor guy who thinks he's defending his country is just one more political bullet.

 

"It's worth pointing out, at the outset, that, even at the worst, this is not Watergate. What we're talking about is a cover-up -- if there is a cover-up -- of negligence and incompetence, not of criminality and I think that is the difference."

Then there are the seven embassy attacks between 2002-2008.
Number of Americans killed: 19, scores injured.
Number of investigations: 0.

Then, as the report Ten Lubak posted indicates, there was the reduction in funding for embassy security, despite which extra security measures were taken in Benghazi.

 

It's criminal negligence. Four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. Hillary and Obama dropped the ball badly and since he had an election to win, they covered it up. There were military assets ready to respond and were told to stand down. Everybody in the loop knew that Benghazi was a planned and coordinated attack, but Hillary and Susan Rice blamed some shitty little YouTube video attempting to mislead us and exposed the identity of the guy who made that shitty little video and possibly placed him in danger.

I don't give a shit who Obama is or what party he belongs to. Obama, Hillary, and Rice dropped the ball. Period. I'd want their heads on a pike no matter who they were.

 

Well, I certainly hope you've emailed Michael Gerson to tell him you know more than he does.

 

One of the interesting things about "Benghazi-gate" (TM 2013 Fox News) is that sending in more troops would have actually made the situation so much worse.

Think about it. Terrorists attack the embassy and the annex. Four Americans are killed, the rest are evacuated.

What is a US military response, thrown together in just a few hours with no discernible goal, supposed to accomplish? What's the mission? Or are we just sending a small force of highly-trained men into an impossible situation?

Does nobody remember Mogadishu? Or Dieppe, before that?

The stand down order was the exact right call to make, and even the most hardcore Benghazi truther has to realize that.

 

What it comes down to, really, is that the kiddies are bored. As this administration has extricated the U.S. from one war started under bogus circumstances by the previous administration and is in the process of extricating itself from another (though notice the overlap between the BENGHAZI OUTRAGE!!1!1 mob and the "WHY AREN'T WE OUT OF AFGHANISTAN LIKE YESTERDAY?????" mob), they need more kewl 'splosions in their infotainment.

There'll be a lull in the OUTRAGE while they go see the new Trek movie, but expect the to resume shortly thereafter.

 

If you are referring to Iraq, I would remind you that the plans for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were established by the Bush admin.

All the Obama Admin. did was screw up a deal to enable U.S. forces to be based there permanently.

Something the U.S. will no doubt regret someday.

 

What a coincidence, so was the dismantling of the space shuttle program.

 

The difference being that the Bush Admin. established a program to actually replace the space shuttle program with something.

The Obama Admin. tried to kill that program only to find they had no choice but to continue it.

 

More accurately, the Iraqi government was forced by popular pressure (largely driven by the Wikileaks revelations concerning US crimes) into demanding that US forces based there be subject to the law. When the US refused this condition, they had to leave.

 

Didn't say they weren't. But it's one thing to sign a decree, another to see it through to completion.

And that doesn't vitiate the fact that you're just itching to watch some other country blow up.

 

What is wrong with that Garamet?

 

Ask your pastor.

 

I do not need a preacher to tell me what to think and do Garamet. But that is a nice way to avoid the question.

A military action can be the most moral, ethical, and decent course of action in certain circumstances.

 

And that's why you've put your life on the line in so many of them.

 

Completely irrelevant Garamet.

IIRC, you have OPPOSED many U.S. military actions.

I can ask you legitimately how much you have done to actually oppose them?

The "make it personal" thing that you love cuts both weighs and is ultimately irrelevant at any rate.

If I think a criminal should be captured, I call the police and ask them to do iit. I don't grab my shotgun and do it myself.

 

Far more than you have in furtherance of same.

As are your lofty speeches about morality, ethics, and decency absent actual practice of any of the three.

I don't recall your making speeches about law enforcement. Probably not as interesting to you as watching foreign cities being reduced to rubble.

 

That's an outrageous comment. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Next time you're protesting that you're so inoffensive and polite and wondering why everyone is always down on you, remember how this kind of comment comes across.

 

If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's the Repukelicans and their hysterical efforts to turn Benghazi into Obama's Watergate.

They pounded away at it before the election, and it didn't help them.

Now they're screeching about it again, only this time it isn't about Obama, it's about smearing Hillary, who polls show trounces any of the current crop of conservative 2016 hopefuls.

 

FTFY.

 

the U.S. has not reduced a "city to rubble" since World War Two. Unless you want to talk about Fallujah and that was

1) More of a town.
2) More than justified by any standard.

As far as I'm concerned, morals are primarily about individual personal conduct because only individuals can seek God's forgiveness and go to heaven. Groups and nations cannot.

 

RickDeckard disagrees: Go fuck yourself, reprobate piece of shit.

And saying things like that is why you just cannot be reasoned with.

How can you possibly believe that military action is not sometimes the best course of action?

How was Hitler eliminated? Friendly persuasion?

 

You simply cannot be for real. I object to your staggeringly barbaric comments about the destruction of Fallujah being justified "by any standard" - a blatant lie - and you equate that with total pacifism on my part, including against Adolph Hitler.

I ask again - just what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

So unless you really are a Borg, your nation is run by individuals. Therefore you hold George W. Bush personally responsible for every civilian death in Iraq.

So do I, but I don't need to blame that on God.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah

Technically what most refer to as the destruction of Fallujah actually involved at most 2,000 Iraqis killed.

During the course of the war, about 60% of the buildings in Fallujah were destroyed and 30-50% of the population displaced.

Heavy damage but certainly not as much destruction as visited upon many Japanese and German cities in World War Two.

by the way Rick, just how should Hitler and his allies have been handled?

 

It does not matter that nations are made up of individuals. When nations act, individual responsibility and thus moral culpability is diluted.

The American people overwhelmingly supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Do you hold the majority of American citizens responsible for "every civilian death in Iraq".

Besides which, what makes you think that civilians are not legitimate targets in time of war? Could Saddam Hussein have maintained his power in Iraq without millions of Iraqi civilians supporting him?

 

Dayton, you better be careful or "RickDeckard" might call your boss again.

 

I don't need a history lesson from you. I'm well aware of what occurred. It was not justified, and please do not presume to speak for anyone but yourself when you say that it was.

With extreme prejudice, much earlier than they eventually were. And you know I think that because we discussed it, and my views on warfare, previously. No need whatever for your lies.