Obama's Blunder In Libya

[NYBuckeye96]

I don't hear the teabaggers talking about Central America during the Reagan Admin. And the great Ollie North!

Did the American Dad song teach us nothing?

[noreply66]

Oliver North AKA Mr. I cannot recall that

[dazed&confused]

I don't hear the teabaggers talking about Central America during the Reagan Admin. And the great Ollie North!

Did the American Dad song teach us nothing?

It's amazing Murdoch allows that show on Fox!

[kantuckyII]

I wonder if all these teabaggers remember what happened in Beruit during the Reagan Administration? Probably not. Bombing of a marine barrack that killed 241 marines. But that was not the fault of Reagan or the Secretary of State, of course!

Look, stop that phrase, 'Teabaggers' If you need to talk about a man's testicles...do it somewhere else.

How do you figure that was Reagan's fault?

[KVDW]

Hillary slams repube senator.............. :12224

http://www.upworthy.com/hillary-clinton ... -the-bengh

In this clip Hillary testified that it " was her job to find out what happened and do everything possible to see that it doesn't happen again ".

Completely wrong, IMO. It was HER job to see that it didn't happen THIS TIME.... and she was asleep at the wheel.

[KVDW]

and BTW.... what Reagan or B. Clinton or Bush did in the past has nothing to do with this.

you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

[dazed&confused]

OK, four lives were lost. That's a tragedy. But seriously, conservatives are trying to make this out like it's the greatest crime to stain the annals of US History. C'mon! And yes, you can measure it against failures of previous administrations. How about the negligence of Rumsfeld to secure Iraq after we overran it? And I'm sure there were intelligence warnings to Reagan before the Beirut compound was bombed. And then there is this-

On August 6, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a President's Daily Brief to President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Bin Laden determined to strike in US

From the actual transcript of that briefing-
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

[KVDW]

On August 6, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a President's Daily Brief to President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Bin Laden determined to strike in US

and the Good Lord is coming again. do you have any idea on the dates and times of either happening from the info given ??

[Paladin]

What I find funny is the Teabaggers thinking we "OWN" the world and can control EVERYTHING anywhere in the world. They continue to be the fools that depict the U.S. as Ugly Americans. Embassies are in foreign countries. There are risks involved being there and no matter the circumstances, the U.S. doesn't have a "police force" everywhere to stop everything. Thats what the public understands.

And BTW, the R didn't FUND the DEFENSE of those embassies. The House just pasted another bill this week that FAILED to fund defense of embassies. The zealots look like complete fools.

[dazed&confused]

On August 6, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a President's Daily Brief to President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Bin Laden determined to strike in US

and the Good Lord is coming again. do you have any idea on the dates and times of either happening from the info given ??

No, that is not an item that interests me. Neither could anyone guess the type of attack in Libya was coming and when. Like HC said, there are 1.4 million cables sent to the State Dept. every year. You guys are just looking to drag her through the streets and discredit Obama. But from your book..
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. 8)

[KVDW]

OK, four lives were lost. That's a tragedy. But seriously, conservatives are trying to make this out like it's the greatest crime to stain the annals of US History. C'mon! And yes, you can measure it against failures of previous administrations. How about the negligence of Rumsfeld to secure Iraq after we overran it? And I'm sure there were intelligence warnings to Reagan before the Beirut compound was bombed. And then there is this-

yes, you can MEASURE failures against each other but you can't justify EITHER by pointing out the other.

ALL politicians should be held accountable for their actions (or inactions as the case may be).



and.....maybe not to you but to the loved ones of those slain, it IS the greatest crime to stain the annals of US history.

[kantuckyII]

First, I don't know how you could compare the too Dazed..The United States is a large country..the threat or warning was so non-descript. These people trained under Clinton for their mission. The Embassy WAS in the devil's backyard..

Secondly, let's not forget those weapons from Libya too. It's funny how you're all willing to ignore the PRESENT AND VERY REAL threat that we are facing by tossing out what you think were past mistakes..amazing!

In his stunning 2003 book "Dereliction of Duty", Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, a presidential aide and carrier of the “nuclear football,” describes President Clinton’s gross irresponsibility toward national security. Patterson tells how, in the fall of 1998, the watch officer in the White House Situation Room notified the president’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, that they had located bin Laden and had “a two-hour window to strike.”

Here is Patterson’s chilling account:

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit[uation] Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk [missile] crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

Patterson continues:

Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion, there were pauses – and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of Defense and State. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The dithering continued until it was too late–and bin Laden lived to fight another day. And to plot the Sept. 11 attacks.

That was not an isolated incident. On Sept. 13, 1996, while on the golf course with his lawyer friend Vernon Jordan, President Clinton had refused to take repeated urgent phone calls from Berger, who needed the president’s approval for air strikes on Iraq. Patterson wrote: “Pilots were in the cockpits, waiting to launch, targets were identified, everything was in place, all [Berger] needed was the go-ahead.”


He never got it. The protective cover of night lifted, and the mission was aborted.

[dazed&confused]

yes, you can MEASURE failures against each other but you can't justify EITHER by pointing out the other.

ALL politicians should be held accountable for their actions (or inactions as the case may be).



and.....maybe not to you but to the loved ones of those slain, it IS the greatest crime to stain the annals of US history.

And to the loved ones of the 4,400 plus slain in a useless elective war in Iraq, THAT is the greatest crime to stain the annals of US history.

[mister b]

What I find funny is the Teabaggers thinking we "OWN" the world and can control EVERYTHING anywhere in the world. They continue to be the fools that depict the U.S. as Ugly Americans. Embassies are in foreign countries. There are risks involved being there and no matter the circumstances, the U.S. doesn't have a "police force" everywhere to stop everything. Thats what the public understands.

And BTW, the R didn't FUND the DEFENSE of those embassies. The House just pasted another bill this week that FAILED to fund defense of embassies. The zealots look like complete fools.

Well played. Game, set and match.

[dazed&confused]

First, I don't know how you could compare the too Dazed

I'm convinced you can't comprehend anything I think anyway. That's OK. I find your line of thinking incomprehensible, too.

[kantuckyII]

Yeah, I know, I'm pretty logical and sensible

[kantuckyII]

What I find funny is the Teabaggers thinking we "OWN" the world and can control EVERYTHING anywhere in the world. They continue to be the fools that depict the U.S. as Ugly Americans. Embassies are in foreign countries. There are risks involved being there and no matter the circumstances, the U.S. doesn't have a "police force" everywhere to stop everything. Thats what the public understands.

And BTW, the R didn't FUND the DEFENSE of those embassies. The House just pasted another bill this week that FAILED to fund defense of embassies. The zealots look like complete fools.

...yet....there was money to hire a LOCAL security force to protect this embassy...that FLED as soon as the trouble started. While in the mean time, there were Marines stations at other embassies that aren't considered as dangerous in any way. Soooooooooooooooo was it really 'cheaper' to hire that local security force than it would have been to have a dozen US Marine's stationed there? I think not....

Check Mate!

[dazed&confused]

Yeah, I know, I'm pretty logical and sensible

Yea, I've always thought that about you. :aaaaa44

[kantuckyII]

..and yet, why do I have this strange feeling you're not serious?

[dazed&confused]

..and yet, why do I have this strange feeling you're not serious?

NOW YOU"RE FINALLY GETTING IT!