The Benghazi Hearings

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yoyoma

This is like trying to have a intelligent conversation with Rainman. I'll let you know when I got to Vegas, maybe you can help me win some loot. You failed to offer any "intelligent conversation".

By the way, I'm not trying to be clever - it's my friends and colleagues who are deployed abroad and putting their lives on the line on a daily basis. Been there! Done that, and still have friends and associates in theater who still believe in what they are doing despite people like you.

That's the one thing I don't joke about so you can keep your fucking comments to yourself.

So you feel the majority of us are drinking the kool-aid. You guys are some kind of hypocrites. You claim to espouse democracy and then lambast the "will" of the people and threaten to secede because your candidate lost. The generation of everybody gets a fucking trophy really makes me weep inside. This is another instance where your ad hominem diatribe is noticeably short on "intelligent conversation".

The Benghazi debacle reflects a failed foreign policy, and it shows that despite Odumbo's braggadacio, al Qaeda is not dead. A squad of U.S. Marines would have kept the attackers out of the U.S. consulate.

That Odumbo undercut the pro-American dictator Mubarack in Egypt and backed the anti-American dictator Morsi in Egypt is an indicator that Odumbo's policy of APPEASEMENT is not working.

[i'va biggen]

Is his appeasement the same as Bush holding hands with the prince?

[Yoyoma]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Benghazi debacle reflects a failed foreign policy, and it shows that despite Odumbo's braggadacio, al Qaeda is not dead. A squad of U.S. Marines would have kept the attackers out of the U.S. consulate.

That Odumbo undercut the pro-American dictator Mubarack in Egypt and backed the anti-American dictator Morsi in Egypt is an indicator that Odumbo's policy of APPEASEMENT is not working.

A team of US Marines MAY have kept the attackers at bay. That whole region is in turmoil right now. You are correct Al Qaeda is not dead. They have been weakened but are not down and out. We can never beat them in a conventional sense. Maybe you can explain how the attack is indicative of failed foreign policy with respect to Libya?

What happened to Mubarak was a long time coming. It's asinine to think the US could have kept Mubarak in power. I guarantee you the US would prefer to see Mubarak in power as opposed to the regime that is in power right now. The writing was on the wall. Do you think it would have been better to sever ties with the incoming regime?

To be honest, I never supported our troops going into Iraq from day 1. The intelligence was shaped and the US populace was hoodwinked. With respect to A'stan, we had the moral high ground in going there but it has long been surpassed.

For someone spouting off about intelligence, you aren't offering anything. You simply keep repeating the same mantra of little to no substance. You are killing me Smalls!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yoyoma

A team of US Marines MAY have kept the attackers at bay. That whole region is in turmoil right now. You are correct Al Qaeda is not dead. They have been weakened but are not down and out. We can never beat them in a conventional sense. Maybe you can explain how the attack is indicative of failed foreign policy with respect to Libya? Odumbo's keeping security in Libya at an "artificially low" level was an obvious attempt to appease and placate regional Islamic interests. Odumbo's attempt to be "touchy-feelly" with militant Islam was forcefully met with rejection at Benghazi.

What happened to Mubarak was a long time coming. It's asinine to think the US could have kept Mubarak in power. I guarantee you the US would prefer to see Mubarak in power as opposed to the regime that is in power right now. The writing was on the wall. Do you think it would have been better to sever ties with the incoming regime? Mubarak had the means to retain power. All he needed was tacit support from the U.S. -- the same support Odumbo gave to the ruling regime in Iran when its citizens rose in protest.

To be honest, I never supported our troops going into Iraq from day 1. The intelligence was shaped and the US populace was hoodwinked. "Armchair, Monday morning quarterbacking" affords the cheap seat of hindsight. If you would, please address the consequence a lack of action would have produced!?! You, and others here, proffer ex post facto action criticisms, while you ignore the lessons of history which teach that those who chose the path of least resistance, such as Chamberlain, were forced to yield to men, such as Churchill, who stood ready to face down evil with principled action.

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What was Saddam hiding?”


With respect to A'stan, we had the moral high ground in going there but it has long been surpassed. Right or wrong, the objective in Afghanistan was to avoid the mistake made in the '80s & '90s where the U.S. achieved its short-term goals but forsook its long-term interests. It's the same lesson that was applied after WWII having learned what didn't work after WWI.

For someone spouting off about intelligence, you aren't offering anything. You simply keep repeating the same mantra of little to no substance. You are killing me Smalls!

Finally, if you exclude your final paragraph, you've posted something intelligent that is more than a mere ad hominem attack.

[Yoyoma]

Close but no cigar - this is the first intelligent, non-belligerent response I've seen from you. Much appreciated.

With respect to Iraq - no armchair quarterbacking here. Trust me, I said it from the "get-go" that the US populace was being sold a bill of goods. Several of the top scientists as well as military intelligence analysts firmly believed that despite Iraq having armed UAV capability, they did not have sufficient means to deliver bio-chemical weapons via that platform. Furthermore, it was known many years prior that boots on the ground in that region would prove difficult at best. It would involve unconventional warfare, door-to-door fighting and the enemies ability to blend in with the civilian populace would add complexity to an already inhospitable wartime environment.

My opinion was that though he was a pain in our ass, Saddam Hussein was effectively contained (threat from Iran, Russia and China applying pressure). I have no doubt that eventually he would have done something to effectively "cross the line", he wasn't there yet.

I partially agree with you that Mubarak had the means to retain power. IMHO it would only have been temporary. He would have eventually went the way of Qaddafi. The "people" wanted him gone.

I'll just leave the Benghazi part as, we disagree. Yeah, you'll notice I softened my stance against you due to the fact that you stated you've served. I'll always agree to disagree with a fellow comrade in arms as long as we can put differences aside to accomplish the mission. Stay straight, fly right!