U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[pantherclub]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

and toby keith

Oh, he's burned a Dixie Chick in effigy.

what an absolute low point in American culture

 

[moleculo]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did Clinton respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did Clinton respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did George H. W. Bush respond back during his term...oh never mind. WHO ####### CARES????

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

 

[timschochet]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Oh god, you're serious.

 

[Thunderlips]

Earlier this week, John McCain argued that Susan Rice is “not qualified” to be the next secretary, since she said the Benghazi attack began spontaneously.

“She’s not qualified. Anyone who goes on national television and in defiance of the facts, five days later — We’re all responsible for what we say and what we do. I’m responsible to my voters. She’s responsible to the Senate of the United States. We have our responsibility for advice and consent.” (CBS “This Morning”)

“I will do everything in my power to block her from being the United States Secretary of State. She has proven that she either doesn’t understand or she is not willing to accept evidence on its face.” (Fox and Friends)

In 2005, Mr. McCain argued that Condoleezza Rice was qualified to be the next secretary of state, even though she testified that there were WMDs in Iraq.

“So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. . . . I can only conclude we are doing this for no other reason than lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. . . . We all have varying policy views, but the President, in my view, has a clear right to put in place the team he believed would serve him best.” (The Senate floor)

link

Apples and Oranges. Everybody from the Russians to Clinton to Gore to most Democrats to poster child Joe Wilson thought Iraq had WMDs.

Anybody with any resaonable access to the evience in this case would no that this was no spontaneous attack.

I hate these absurdly false equivalencies. Do you you really believe these are in any way similar?

Love that excuse...."THIS POLITICAL PARTY ISN'T IN CHARGE....BUT BUT BUT THEY THOUGHT IT TO!"

 

[Rohn Jambo]

BTW, timscohet, I already told you what I would have done as CIC.

 

[timschochet]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Oh god, you're serious.

Don't make me report you. Link

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

 

[timschochet]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.

 

[timschochet]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.When did I criticize Obama? I was just giving you my interpretation of what I think he meant.

 

[moleculo]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did Clinton respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did George H. W. Bush respond back during his term...oh never mind. WHO ####### CARES????

I've been critical to the response after the attacks. When pantherclub asked what GWB's response was, he's looking for me to find a model of what an appropriate response might include. My counter is that when our embassies were attacked in Kenya, we launched cruise missles at a medicine/weapons factory and provided counter-terrorism aid to Kenya. I suppose it could be argued that this was not a stiff-enough response and perhaps emboldened Bin Laden to continue his terrorist ways.The Kenya attack may be the closest recent-history analong to the Benghazi attack, so measuring our current response to what was done previously should at least be considered, no?

 

[Apple Jack]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.

A) Pretty sure the US was involved in putting an end to HitlerB) Israel didn't exist when Hitler was alive

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

Of course there is nothing wrong with my lackof knowledge. I never claimed to be a American historian or an expert on Israel. I think you're mistaken that only those people can have opinions. And just to prove you wrong, I say you suck.

 

[timschochet]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.

Again false. The mass murder of Jews by Germany did not begin until the summer of 1941, and was not carried out in large scale practice until the summer of 1942, well after Pearl Harbor. By that time America was at war with Germany. And it's quite amazing that you think it's "sad" that we don't go to war on the side of Israel. Israel has never asked us to go to war on their side. I can't think of a single instance where it would have made sense for us or Israel to go to war together.

Your obvious hatred of Obama is really pathetic, IMO.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.

A) Pretty sure the US was involved in putting an end to HitlerB) Israel didn't exist when Hitler was alive

I know Israel did not exist then and we fought in WWII. I was just saying that The US got into WWII when we were attacked.

 

[timschochet]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

Of course there is nothing wrong with my lackof knowledge. I never claimed to be a American historian or an expert on Israel. I think you're mistaken that only those people can have opinions. And just to prove you wrong, I say you suck.

This isn't expert stuff. This is pretty simple stuff that most people know. You're right, everyone can have opinions. But if your opinions are based on such gross falsehoods, how can you expect anyone to take them seriously?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama does not want to spend more boatloads on another war. It's pretty predictable that he will try for another Nobel Peace Prize by pretending nothing has happened every single time someone stuffs him into the locker.

Are you suggesting that we go to war over what happened in Benghazi? Against whom?

No. Don't put words into my mouth. I just commented on Obama's foreign policy.When he said "Israel has very right to defense itself", he basically told BB that they're on their own.

Ah. Well then perhaps you can name the American President who decided that we should go to war on Israel's side?

The media does not focus much on this but not being the policeman of the world is a conscious decision by Obama and he has been very consistent so far.Another thing that Obama has learned is to not make promises he cannot keep.

OK, you avoided the question. So let me answer it for you: there is not a single American President who has ever gone to war on the side of Israel. There is not a single American President who has ever said anything other than "Israel has every right to defend herself" whenever Israel has been involved in a military engagement, or even a full scale war, since the birth of Israel in 1948. For you to criticize Obama for these remarks demonstrates an ignorance on your part which is really quite shocking given the fact that you chose to comment on this issue.

I answered your question in a separate post. And sadly, you're right, even when millions of Jews were killed by Hilter.

Again false. The mass murder of Jews by Germany did not begin until the summer of 1941, and was not carried out in large scale practice until the summer of 1942, well after Pearl Harbor. By that time America was at war with Germany. And it's quite amazing that you think it's "sad" that we don't go to war on the side of Israel. Israel has never asked us to go to war on their side. I can't think of a single instance where it would have made sense for us or Israel to go to war together.

Your obvious hatred of Obama is really pathetic, IMO.

You dumb ###. I voted for Obama. And I will say what I think when he is right and when he is not.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

Of course there is nothing wrong with my lackof knowledge. I never claimed to be a American historian or an expert on Israel. I think you're mistaken that only those people can have opinions. And just to prove you wrong, I say you suck.

This isn't expert stuff. This is pretty simple stuff that most people know. You're right, everyone can have opinions. But if your opinions are based on such gross falsehoods, how can you expect anyone to take them seriously?

Obviously, you took it seriously.

 

[timschochet]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

Of course there is nothing wrong with my lackof knowledge. I never claimed to be a American historian or an expert on Israel. I think you're mistaken that only those people can have opinions. And just to prove you wrong, I say you suck.

This isn't expert stuff. This is pretty simple stuff that most people know. You're right, everyone can have opinions. But if your opinions are based on such gross falsehoods, how can you expect anyone to take them seriously?

Obviously, you took it seriously.

Seriously enough to mock.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Timschochet, regarding your question about going to war on Israel's side, I think all POTUSes will do that only when American national security is at risk. We did not get involved in WWII until after Pearl Harbor.

Again, this is simply not true. Please look up the term "Lend-Lease" and get back to me. As far as military action not involving our national security, your statement is not true either. So far you have demonstrated an incredible lack of knowledge about the history of American military and foreign policy. Nothing wrong with that, but why spout opinions when all of your information is incorrect?

Of course there is nothing wrong with my lackof knowledge. I never claimed to be a American historian or an expert on Israel. I think you're mistaken that only those people can have opinions. And just to prove you wrong, I say you suck.

This isn't expert stuff. This is pretty simple stuff that most people know. You're right, everyone can have opinions. But if your opinions are based on such gross falsehoods, how can you expect anyone to take them seriously?

Obviously, you took it seriously.

Seriously enough to mock.

You suck.

 

[Sam Quentin]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

I absolutely love that this is the world you've constructed for yourself.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."Letter to President Bush, Signed by:-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Sam Quentin]

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082598attack-rdp.html

ASHINGTON -- The United States believed that senior Iraqi scientists were helping to produce elements of the nerve agent VX at a factory in Khartoum that American cruise missiles destroyed last week, administration and intelligence officials said on Monday.

The evidence the administration has cited as justification for the attack consisted of a soil sample secretly obtained months ago outside the pharmaceutical factory, the Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, the officials said. Officially the administration has refused to describe its evidence in any detail, or to say how it was obtained.

The sample contained a rare chemical that would require two more complex steps to be turned into VX, one of the deadliest nerve agents in existence, and the chemical, whose acronym is EMPTA, has no industrial uses. The United Nations and the United States have long agreed that Iraq is extremely skilled at many kinds of VX production, having worked for years to perfect the best process.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said there was evidence that senior Iraqi scientists had aided the efforts to make VX at that factory, and at another plant a couple of miles away.

The connection with Iraq emerged as a key part of the administration's argument for why it was justified in launching cruise missiles at a plant in another country without any warning.

The officials disclosed the information, four days after the American strike, to try to counter claims by the Sudanese government that the factory, located in an industrial area of Khartoum, was purely a benign commercial venture that produced half of the Sudan's medicines.

The United States, however, rebuffed calls from the Sudan and other countries to turn over its evidence. At the United Nations, the Security Council on Monday put off a request by Arab nations -- submitted by one of the United States' closest Arab allies, Kuwait -- to send inspectors to search the rubble in Khartoum for signs of chemicals related to VX.

"I don't see what the purpose of a fact-finding study would be," Peter Burleigh, the deputy American representative to the United Nations, said after the meeting. "We have credible information that fully justifies the strike we made on that one facility in Khartoum."

At a news conference in Khartoum, the Sudanese president, Omar Hassan el-Bashir, kept up his sharp attacks on the United States and President Clinton, saying Clinton ordered the attack to cover up the furor over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton and his senior aides have described the evidence linking the factory to the production of VX as compelling and even irrefutable, though until Monday the administration refused to discuss the evidence in any but the most general way.

The officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the soil sample, collected outside the factory, contained traces of a "precursor chemical" called ethyl methylphosphonothionate, or EMPTA. There would be no viable explanation for the presence of that chemical, they said, other than the production of VX.

"You don't obtain this chemical because you're making ball point pens or whatever," an administration official said. "If you're making this, you're making VX."

VX is an odorless, colorless liquid that can kill with remarkable speed. A mere drop on the skin or inhaled in the lungs is enough to kill an adult within minutes. There are a number of ways to make the agent, but the officials in Washington and other American and foreign officials said the technique using EMPTA is one Iraq used to develop its own VX stockpiles in the 1980s.

Officials in Washington and at the United Nations said there were a number of other factors linking Iraq to the pharmaceutical plant, as well as a second facility.

Earlier this year, President Saddam Hussein's government asked the committee that monitors U.N. sanctions to allow it to buy medicines from the factory under the "oil for food" program that allows humanitarian supplies into Iraq.

Antonio Monteiro, Portugal's representative to the United Nations who is this month's president of the sanctions committee, confirmed the request, but the officials said it was not clear what medicines were ordered or whether any were ever delivered.

Although the United Nations closely monitors goods purchased under the "oil for food" program, the officials said the contract could have provided a pretext for extensive visits by Iraqi officials.

A senior intelligence official said that one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The official said a number of Iraqi scientists working for Emad al-Ani had attended the grand opening of the factory two years ago.

Although the United States struck at the Shifa plant, officials in Washington acknowledged that the second plant is also suspected of making chemical weapons. That site, according to diplomats in New York and the Sudan, has been frequently visited by Iraqi technicians and was more heavily guarded than Shifa Pharmaceutical.

However, it also in a residential neighborhood, and officials familiar with planning for the American cruise missile strikes said the fear of collateral damage was a factor in choosing a target. A strike at a plant that made VX itself, not merely a precursor to it, would pose significant risks of scattering a deadly nerve agent during an attack.

Although the administration offered details about its evidence, there were still unanswered questions. The soil sample, which presumably measured either a spill or airborne particulars, did not prove that the attacked factory was the pharmaceutical plant that produced the precursor chemical, EMPTA.

"It's conceivable they were only storing EMPTA there, or it was just passing through there," the senior intelligence official said. "You could spin several scenarios."

While the administration maintains the evidence of VX production is clear, the links between the factory and Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile whose network of terrorists was the target of last week's strike, is circuitous.

Bin Laden controls a sprawling web of companies underwritten by a fortune said to exceed $200 million, including ventures in the Sudan, where he made a home after his expulsion from Saudi Arabia in 1994 until he was forced to leave in 1996.

The officials said bin Laden has no direct investment in the pharmaceutical plant, but has financial ties to Sudan's state-run military industrial complex. They said that fact and bin Laden's suspected interest in obtaining chemical weapons was enough to warrant destroying the factory, along with a paramilitary training camp in Afghanistan.

"When you put all that together," the senior intelligence official said of the factory, "it all adds up to a source of real concern."

As administration officials laid out their case, new details emerged of the strike itself. A senior Pentagon official said on Monday that the cruise missiles that landed in Afghanistan heavily damaged or destroyed virtually every "soft" target at the sprawling mountain training camp, including barracks, communications equipment and arms stockpiles.

However, the United States did not bother striking fortified bunkers in the area, since Tomahawk cruise missiles, despite a 1,000-pound payload and remarkable accuracy, would not have destroyed them.

Officials at the Pentagon also confirmed on Monday that the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Ralston, traveled to Pakistan before the strikes so he could be with Pakistani military leaders at the time of the attack. The reason for the visit, which was first reported on Monday in The Wall Street Journal, was to reassure Pakistan that the barrage of incoming missiles was not an attack by its archenemy, India.

 

[Sam Quentin]

NOW with Bill MoyersTranscript. Bill Moyers Talks with Joseph C. Wilson, IV. 2.28.03MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that? WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that? WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

yes that Joe Wilson, one year after his infamous trip to Niger and after the Bush SOTU.

 

[matuski]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.

If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

 

[Sam Quentin]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

Wow, what's next, the race card?

 

[matuski]

Good to see Sam at least linking his cut and pastes instead of the usual outright plagiarism.

 

[matuski]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

Wow, what's next, the race card?

You always seem to hate it when someone tries to bring these threads back to what is actually important. Get back to cutting and pasting, that seems to be the extent of your comfort zone.

 

[Sam Quentin]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

Wow, what's next, the race card?

You always seem to hate it when someone tries to bring these threads back to what is actually important. Get back to cutting and pasting, that seems to be the extent of your comfort zone.

You're comfort zone seems to be personal attacks with no basis in reality

 

[pittstownkiller]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

Wow, what's next, the race card?

You always seem to hate it when someone tries to bring these threads back to what is actually important. Get back to cutting and pasting, that seems to be the extent of your comfort zone.

???Questioning cutting and pasting when half the time people here are ragging about links, seems like a stretch.

 

[sporthenry]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

I absolutely love that this is the world you've constructed for yourself.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."Letter to President Bush, Signed by:-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

So they were all wrong so they all deserve blame? I'm not defending any of them just saying that this stuff happens. But if you want to blame Obama for this, I'll blame Bush for Iraq b/c he is the CIC and it happened on his watch and as we have all found out the buck stops with the President. This also doesn't take into account that this was still within a year of 9/11 and we would have went to war with anyone at that time. But does anyone see any scary similarities between these comments and those being made on Iran?

 

[matuski]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

Wow, what's next, the race card?

You always seem to hate it when someone tries to bring these threads back to what is actually important. Get back to cutting and pasting, that seems to be the extent of your comfort zone.

You're comfort zone seems to be personal attacks with no basis in reality

Calling it like I see it. If my observations offend you, look in the mirror.

 

[sporthenry]

13 of our kids have died.. this month.If only the the righties here cared as much about the actual lives lost as the opportunity to criticize our President.

It is almost like they would prefer a scandal to blame someone than just a tragedy that we can all grieve together with. Not that the Lefties didn't do similar stuff with Iraq but they were more reverent than Limbaugh and Co.

 

[beer 302]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

and toby keith

Oh, he's burned a Dixie Chick in effigy.

what an absolute low point in American culture

I don't know, have you ever listened to one of their albums all the way through?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

and toby keith

Oh, he's burned a Dixie Chick in effigy.

what an absolute low point in American culture

I don't know, have you ever listened to one of their albums all the way through?

Like swimming, I wouldn't dare do that right after eating.

 

[FlapJacks]

I'm glad I can amuse?

Yo Mole, I am curious. You are talking about a response and I also feel that if we now know it was AQ, what kind of response should we make? We already have killed the leader, many of the directs underneath him, it took them 7 hours to finally kill this conselute and the CIA ops there, we've destroyed a lot of their network, they fired back a shot. In 2001 they killed 2.606 Americans, in 2012 they managed to kill 4. I like a heavy handed government to send a message but short of hunting all those involved down 1 by 1, what could we do here? I'm not trying to trick, I would like to hear your thoughts.

this was not al-queda. It was an al-queda affiliate. The latest I heard is that some of these guys were detained by the Libyans and others, but we haven't been able to get at them. Maybe we have, but I haven't heard a damn thing about it, but then again I'm not he most informed peach in the stand.It has angered me since day 1 that US sovereignty was attacked, our representatives acting on official duty were killed, and our response immediately afterwards was to express how some sentiment about freedom of speech. There's got to be something else.

How did Bush respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

How did Clinton respond back during his term when our consulates were attacked?

bombed a medicine factory in Sudan for one:

The factory was destroyed in 1998 by a missile attack launched by the United States government, killing one employee and wounding eleven. Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off.[1][2] The US government stated several reasons for its attack:

Retaliation for the 1998 United States embassy bombings against the US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.

The alleged use of the factory for the processing of VX nerve agent.

For alleged ties between the owners of the plant and al-Qaeda.

Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering claimed to have sufficient evidence against Sudan, including contacts between officials at Al-Shifa plant and Iraqi chemical weapons experts, with the Iraq chemical weapons program the only one identified with using EMPTA for VX production. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a Sudanese opposition in Cairo led by Mubarak Al-Mahdi, also insisted that the plant was producing ingredients for chemical weapons.[5] Former Clinton administration counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke and former national security advisor Sandy Berger also noted the facilities alleged ties with the former Iraqi government. Clarke also cited Iraq's $199,000 contract with al Shifa for veterinary medicine under the UN's Oil for Food Program. David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector also said that Iraq may have assisted in the construction of the Al-Shifa plant, noting that Sudan would be unlikely to have the technical knowledge to produce VX.[6]

 

[Novice2]

There is a difference between believing faulty intelligence (which the entire world and their intelligence agencies also believed) and flat out lying and stating something for which there is overwhelming evidence that what you are saying is a lie.

Bet you were a big fan of Freedom Fries.

The answers could explain why President Barack Obama and top aides, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the attack for days afterward as a protest against an anti-Islam video that spontaneously turned violent and why they played down any potential link to al-Qaida, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Thunderlips]

Gotta laugh at the Republican desperation on this Benghazi thing. You lost the election Conservatives. Don't pout.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I thought this was a great article about Bengazi and the challenges of modern diplomacy in dangerous areas.

It's one of those long New York Times Magazine articles so most of you guys probably won't read it. The takeaway is basically that greater security measures are an impediment to good diplomacy and therefore it's overly simplistic to just assert that there was inadequate security at the Libyan embassy.

 

[sporthenry]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/

:crickets:

But don't worry, now they are going after the intel guys. And again, who the f*** cares about talking points. Like many investigations, the first working theory was incorrect but eventually we got it right. You can't really prove a coverup if you either don't let them cover it up or they "come clean" eventually about the facts.

 

[tommyboy]

I thought this was a great article about Bengazi and the challenges of modern diplomacy in dangerous areas.

It's one of those long New York Times Magazine articles so most of you guys probably won't read it. The takeaway is basically that greater security measures are an impediment to good diplomacy and therefore it's overly simplistic to just assert that there was inadequate security at the Libyan embassy.

in other words its a ton of bull####.the place had been attacked prior, the ambassador had repeatedly asked for more security and been denied, the local militants had threatened the day before, publicly, and when the attack went down over 7 hours and 2 waves, our top security and state dept folks watched it real time from a predator drone and did nothing., We didn't even send a jet to buzz the crowd, let alone fly in a gunship to strafe the crowd.

this whole episode could have been avoided and worse could have been stopped.

 

[dutch]

I thought this was a great article about Bengazi and the challenges of modern diplomacy in dangerous areas.

It's one of those long New York Times Magazine articles so most of you guys probably won't read it. The takeaway is basically that greater security measures are an impediment to good diplomacy and therefore it's overly simplistic to just assert that there was inadequate security at the Libyan embassy.

Thanks for the link, fatguy.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

our top security and state dept folks watched it real time from a predator drone and did nothing

This never happened. Please stop reading garbage sites and parroting them.

 

[dutch]

I thought this was a great article about Bengazi and the challenges of modern diplomacy in dangerous areas.

It's one of those long New York Times Magazine articles so most of you guys probably won't read it. The takeaway is basically that greater security measures are an impediment to good diplomacy and therefore it's overly simplistic to just assert that there was inadequate security at the Libyan embassy.

in other words its a ton of bull####.the place had been attacked prior, the ambassador had repeatedly asked for more security and been denied, the local militants had threatened the day before, publicly, and when the attack went down over 7 hours and 2 waves, our top security and state dept folks watched it real time from a predator drone and did nothing., We didn't even send a jet to buzz the crowd, let alone fly in a gunship to strafe the crowd.

this whole episode could have been avoided and worse could have been stopped.

heck, we could still bomb the area to be sure...