Brown: Is This The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down?

[Turks]

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."

But something went horribly wrong with Obama's "October Surprise." Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers...and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Some will say that Admiral Lyons' accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that's exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.


http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/01/11/brown-is-this-the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/

[fj1200]

The answer is: No.

[jimnyc]

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."

But something went horribly wrong with Obama's "October Surprise." Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers...and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Some will say that Admiral Lyons' accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that's exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.


http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/01/11/brown-is-this-the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/

Wow, if this turns out to be true...

My first question would be, does the Admiral have anything to gain from this? Is he hawking a book or stand to gain financially from his story? Does he have an axe to grind? "IF" this were true, and there was proof, Obama would need to be impeached.

* just noticed that the date was January of this year. One would think that even if there were just trace amounts of this being true, many would be all over this and it would be broadcast around the world. Also, if true, why wouldn't the Admiral just present himself to congress and tell his story?

I still think there needs to be a REAL investigation, but we'll probably never see it. Hillary and her "why does it matter" was no investigation at all.

[revelarts]

if you can't tell me all the details of why Obama would do this? why there aren't more people that know about this conspiracy and talked already, someone would have talked! , and why any Ameircans would agree to it and signed copies of all the plans of this affair, pictures of those people who made this so called deal talking to each other with plans in hand. And why would crazy Muslim terrorist would even talk to americans without trying to slit their throat to make this so called "deal" , and why didn't this come out in congress before, is CONGRESS IN ON IT TOO , and why aren't there news reports from people who I trust, not any bias news channels or crackpot sites ive never heard of (so nothing they say could be true) or heaven forbid youtube. well then i might start to look at your so called army persons crazy claims. But if i find any website calling this so-call whistle blower a crackpot or it says he left the tiolet seat up in the past or he didn't vote republican well then nothing he says will be credible and i don't have think about anything he's said anymore ever ever and your just crazy for bringing it up. (the gullibility of some folks.) I'll tolerate this idea for a minute just because...

so what's your evidence? I'm open and rational to all the facts.

[cadet]

The answer is: No.

Thank you,
As long as there's blindly following sheep who don't pay attention to the news or politics or anything, but hate republicans for some unknown reason, this idiot will stay in power.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."

But something went horribly wrong with Obama's "October Surprise." Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers...and the attackers, believing that the Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Some will say that Admiral Lyons' accusation is not a smoking gun. We agree, that's exactly why Congress must investigate Benghazi-gate.


I have believed it was a mutual planned attack with obama admin cooperating with the muslim terorists over there or else why was the --STAND DOWN- ORDER GIVEN ?????--Tyr


http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2013/01/11/brown-is-this-the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our traitor in chief is in it neck deep....-Tyr

[revelarts]

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/sarcasm3.gif
there all all kinds of reasons for a stand down order. I can't think of anything specific right now but eventually i'll find one. And so there were a few inconsistencies in their story, so what, it doesn't mean they planed it. why would they plan 14 lying versions of what happened Hunh Hunh?
Obama is not into conspiring with anyone. this crazy insane,mad hatter, conspiracy nutball blather from a has been so-called admiral trying to hype a book and whose lost a few buttons on his cap i believe.
Americans don't do that type of thing Tyr. It was only evil Muslims. look at the film. this admiral is just hurting the families with his crazy talk.

[avatar4321]

With all the scandals plaguing this administration, another one isnt going to do much.

[aboutime]

With nothing but the stroke of a pen in signing his name. Obama has the power to use Executive Orders to eliminate, railroad, twist, defy, and destroy all attempts to bring him down.

Remember how they always called Reagan the Teflon Don?

Obama thinks, knows, and practices being Untouchable as Teflon.

So, the only way to get rid of him must come through votes.

And considering how dumbed down, and stupid we know Americans have become.

Obama can write his own ticket, and determine who Lives, or Dies if they disagree with him.

[jimnyc]

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/sarcasm3.gif
there all all kinds of reasons for a stand down order. I can't think of anything specific right now but eventually i'll find one. And so there were a few inconsistencies in their story, so what, it doesn't mean they planed it. why would they plan 14 lying versions of what happened Hunh Hunh?
Obama is not into conspiring with anyone. this crazy insane,mad hatter, conspiracy nutball blather from a has been so-called admiral trying to hype a book and whose lost a few buttons on his cap i believe.
Americans don't do that type of thing Tyr. It was only evil Muslims. look at the film. this admiral is just hurting the families with his crazy talk.

Your ranting and sarcasm was already noted in the first one. But if you're trying to imitate (thank you), at least make the arguments based on facts. What book is he hawking? I know when I make that accusation I always supply a link, to add a little to the credibility. I, personally, never make comments about specifics but claim I can't find one. I have my facts in order when tossing up my suspicions.

At any rate, as you saw from my initial reply, I am already a bit cautious myself. Same as with others before him, regardless of who the CIC is, I prefer some facts to backup these types of accusations. I wouldn't run calling for Obama's head on this one without something to back it up.

[aboutime]

Your ranting and sarcasm was already noted in the first one. But if you're trying to imitate (thank you), at least make the arguments based on facts. What book is he hawking? I know when I make that accusation I always supply a link, to add a little to the credibility. I, personally, never make comments about specifics but claim I can't find one. I have my facts in order when tossing up my suspicions.

At any rate, as you saw from my initial reply, I am already a bit cautious myself. Same as with others before him, regardless of who the CIC is, I prefer some facts to backup these types of accusations. I wouldn't run calling for Obama's head on this one without something to back it up.


jimnyc. Odd as this may sound. What your last sentence stated above is....Exactly what Obama, Holder, and Hillary depend on from WE THE PEOPLE.
Seems he has managed to scare most of the people into GIVING HIM A BREAK, and never letting them point any accusing fingers UNLESS it is He, or Members of his staff doing the pointing.

Obama depends on all of us being partially, if not entirely Complacent.
That is how he got where he is.

[Kathianne]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343370/ungag-benghazi-33-deroy-murdock


Ungag the Benghazi 33! (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343370/ungag-benghazi-33-deroy-murdock)
By Deroy Murdock (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/23694)


March 19, 2013 12:57 P.M. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343370/ungag-benghazi-33-deroy-murdock)


As new details have emerged over the last six months, the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, has assumed at least four forms:


First, it seemed to be a tragic assault by an angry mob inflamed by an anti-Islamic YouTube video. The murder of four American public servants was the toxic fruit of a spontaneous protest that got severely out of control.


Next, this onslaught clearly became known as a raid planned and executed by al-Qaeda’s Libyan allies.
Soon, Benghazi was synonymous with deadly bureaucratic incompetence, as documents showed that the late ambassador J. Christopher Stevens lamented that city’s deteriorating security situation and pleaded in vain for help.


And now, Benghazi seems to stand for a massive Obama administration cover-up, with some 33 survivors of the massacre evidently told to shut up about that night.


The House Republican leadership has the power to solve this mystery and urgently must do so.


Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) is on the warpath on this issue, as well he should be. He promises to tie the Senate in knots until Team Obama identifies these 33 Americans who lived through that deadly night and, six months later, have yet to explain what they witnessed and what happened before and after the carnage.


Graham says he has spoken with several survivors, and they fear opening their mouths.


“The bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet,” Graham told (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/15/sen-graham-claims-benghazi-survivors-told-to-be-quiet-by-administration/) Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier on Friday. “Their story is chilling. They feel afraid to tell it.”


“The best evidence of what happened in Benghazi is not a bunch of politicians in Washington trying to cover their political ass,” Graham added. “This is the people who lived through the debacle, and I’m going to do all I can to get them before the Congress and American people. . . . We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story.”

...

[jimnyc]

Graham speaking up certainly adds credibility on the issue of covering 'something' up. I hope they keep pounding on the doors until we can get answers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

With all the scandals plaguing this administration, another one isnt going to do much.

I agree the ffing dog has his second term and we will be lucky if this cover up can even affect Hildabeast's 2016 run. Obama is beyond touch by anybody and not just because of his presidential protection but more importantly because of the protection he has from his globalist handlers. The puppet must be allowed to dance to the tune played by it strings. The shadow government now calls all the shots. Gaffer was right as rain..-Tyr

[revelarts]

Your ranting and sarcasm was already noted in the first one. But if you're trying to imitate (thank you), at least make the arguments based on facts. What book is he hawking? I know when I make that accusation I always supply a link, to add a little to the credibility. I, personally, never make comments about specifics but claim I can't find one. I have my facts in order when tossing up my suspicions.

At any rate, as you saw from my initial reply, I am already a bit cautious myself. Same as with others before him, regardless of who the CIC is, I prefer some facts to backup these types of accusations. I wouldn't run calling for Obama's head on this one without something to back it up.

not all at you Jim, you've had your moments though. the book thing is you.
But the attitude in general of many people over stories like this when they pop up against the right are not considered unless the proof is... well i don't think there is a level of proof that can over come some folks level of the skepticism.

Vast republican voter fraud and Iraq are the 2 that come 1st to mind and both have had more than this level of info but they aren't taken seriously by some still.


Hey don't take personal but i'm gonna be an AH an keep it up for a while :poke:

[revelarts]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343370/ungag-benghazi-33-deroy-murdock
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/sarcasm3.gif
How do these things get started? A few mistaken words in a crisis and all these conspiracy jump out of thin air.

Lindsey Grahman is a right wing political NUT and a HACK. He hates Obama, OF COURSE he's going to say it's a conspiracy. LOL!
How can you believe obamas swore political enemy. didn't he say he was going to do everything in his power to make Obama failed in office???
Secret meeting with secret whistle blowers HA!!
WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF???! this is America!!!:salute::salute:
It's ridiculous to be afraid. if they have something that's criminal to report they should take to the police. and then courts will review the case and Obama will have to answer for whatever he's done. that's the law that's how we do it. no need to fear.
if it was really something that bad they'd just arrest he people involved.
33 people RIIIIGHT! all of them are afraid of Obama, what's gonna do drone strike them. kill their children, take their pensions? all that is illegal. so he can't do that. they should just come out to the news media, they'll put there stories on the front page if they REALLY have anything to say that's relevant.
my guess is they don't. Just more nutball republican hate filled HEARSAY and Guessing?
Were any of them in the Presidents office went this conspiracy supposedly took place ?!?!
I think NOT!!!


:laugh2:

I think aliens may have been in on the conspiracy too. Muslim aliens
:coffee:

[jimnyc]

not all at you Jim, you've had your moments though. the book thing is you.
But the attitude in general of many people over stories like this when they pop up against the right are not considered unless the proof is... well i don't think there is a level of proof that can over come some folks level of the skepticism.

Vast republican voter fraud and Iraq are the 2 that come 1st to mind and both have had more than this level of info but they aren't taken seriously by some still.


Hey don't take personal but i'm gonna be an AH an keep it up for a while :poke:

Cool with me, I was just making sure that if you want to flatter me with imitation, at least make sure the bastard actually has a book out! :slap:

[jimnyc]

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/sarcasm3.gif
How do these things get started? A few mistaken words in a crisis and all these conspiracy jump out of thin air.

Lindsey Grahman is a right wing political NUT and a HACK. He hates Obama, OF COURSE he's going to say it's a conspiracy. LOL!
How can you believe obamas swore political enemy. didn't he say he was going to do everything in his power to make Obama failed in office???
Secret meeting with secret whistle blowers HA!!
WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF???! this is America!!!:salute::salute:
It's ridiculous to be afraid. if they have something that's criminal to report they should take to the police. and then courts will review the case and Obama will have to answer for whatever he's done. that's the law that's how we do it. no need to fear.
if it was really something that bad they'd just arrest he people involved.
33 people RIIIIGHT! all of them are afraid of Obama, what's gonna do drone strike them. kill their children, take their pensions? all that is illegal. so he can't do that. they should just come out to the news media, they'll put there stories on the front page if they REALLY have anything to say that's relevant.
my guess is they don't. Just more nutball republican hate filled HEARSAY and Guessing?
Were any of them in the Presidents office went this conspiracy supposedly took place ?!?!
I think NOT!!!


:laugh2:

I think aliens may have been in on the conspiracy too. Muslim aliens
:coffee:

Rev, is it happy hour where you are at? :lol: :coffee:

[aboutime]

Rev, is it happy hour where you are at? :lol: :coffee:


jimnyc: What we are seeing with Rev is the typical liberal method of denial. First they use the laughable...unless they create it...conspiracy talk, then try to make whoever might have spoken about such things look like a fool.
It's merely another liberal method...like not answering questions with anything but more questions.

As for Happy Hour. Seems like every second of every minute, of every hour is a Happy Hour for most today. No sense of reality, and buried in a bottle, or high on drugs makes for a HAPPY HOUR, 24 hours a day.

[fj1200]

jimnyc: What we are seeing with Rev is the typical liberal method of denial.

No sense of reality, and buried in a bottle, or high on drugs makes for a HAPPY HOUR, 24 hours a day.

:facepalm99:

[revelarts]

More Crazy Conspiracy talk, the About Obama working with the Muslim brotherhood continuing efforts that started during the Bush era on that same line.
right wing Crazy Wall st journal and other sources.
don't they know that Obama is just trying to spread democrat and protect us from the terrorist?
people will say ANYTHING to try and smear our president.
When I see some proof , not these shadowy state dept sources and washington PR firm connections.
And Even He he did have some partnership with the muslim Brotherhood I'm sure he know more about it than we do. and we should trust his judgment .And of course . BUSH DID IT TO!!! so that makes it all OK. as long as BOTH parties trade with the enemies then we can all agree that it must be OK. even though we perfer if our party was the one that did it. just make me feel more comfortable yaknow.




January 24, 2013 (LD - Tony Cartalucci) - In 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118530969571176579.html)." And even then, it was noted that the Brotherhood held close links with groups the US recognizes and lists as terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Al Qaeda.

The report gives a disturbing foreshadowing of US support that would eventually see the Muslim Brotherhood rise as both a political and terroristic power across the Arab World, after decades of hard-fought attempts to crush the sectarian extremist organization everywhere from Tunisia to Syria, from Egypt to Libya, to Jordan, and beyond. In fact, the 2007 Wall Street Journal article specifically noted that the US partnership could "destabilize governments in Jordan and Egypt, two US allies where the Brotherhood is a growing opposition force."

Egypt is now run by a sectarian-extremist Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship, after the US incited unrest there in 2011 (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/west-celebrates-as-dark-age-descends.html), while Jordan is seeing increasing unrest led by the Jordanian arm of the Brotherhood.

What is also disturbing about the 2007 report, is that it shows how allegedly "Bush-era" policies transcended the 2000-2008 administration and continued in earnest under President Obama.

The report, written by Jay Solomon, echoes similar foreshadowing of the coming violent sectarian bloodbath now engulfing Syria, found in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's New Yorker piece titled, "The Redireciton: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism? (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all)"

Solomon begins by stating:

On a humid afternoon in late May, about 100 supporters of Syria's largest exile opposition group, the National Salvation Front, gathered outside Damascus's embassy here to protest Syrian President Bashar Assad's rule. The participants shouted anti-Assad slogans and raised banners proclaiming: "Change the Regime Now." Later in the article, it would be revealed that the National Salvation Front (NSF) was in contact with the US State Department and that a Washington-based consulting firm in fact assisted the NSF in organizing the rally:


In the weeks before the presidential election, the State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative, which promotes regional democracy, and NSF members met to talk about publicizing Syria's lack of democracy and low voter turnout, participants say. A Washington-based consulting firm, C&O Resources Inc., assisted the NSF in its planning for the May 26 anti-Assad rally at the Syrian embassy, providing media and political contacts. State Department officials stress they provided no financial or technical support to the protestors. Just like the Arab Spring (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-dupe.html), what was in fact foreign-backed sedition, was peddled publicly by professional PR firms with the help of a bought-off, complicit corporate media, as a "pro-democracy" uprising.

And while the Wall Street Journal then, just as the US State Department and the Western media houses are now portraying the Syrian opposition as representing a wide range of interests across Syrian society, it was admitted then, just as it is plainly obvious now, that the sectarian extremist Muslim Brotherhood was in fact at the very center of the "uprising:"

One of the NSF's most influential members is the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- the decades-old political movement active across the Middle East whose leaders have inspired the terrorist groups Hamas and al Qaeda. Its Syrian offshoot says it has renounced armed struggle in favor of democratic reform. The article would describe a fractured, disorganized opposition, must like the 2011 "National Syrian Council" (NSC) and its more recent US-Qatari contrived reincarnation (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/12/us-recognizes-unelected-terrorists-as.html), the "National Coalition," whose only common denominator and prevailing ideology was and still is the sectarian extremism practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, the current "National Coalition" is headed by Moaz al-Khatib who, on Qatari state-owned Al Jazeera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgWWXvmZmsc&feature=player_embedded#%21), openly admitted his aspirations of establishing an "Islamic State" in place of Syria's current secular society. Al-Khatib also vigorously protested (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/12/us-backed-syrian-opposition-demands.html) the US' listing of Al Qaeda terrorist franchisee, Al Nusra, who is openly fighting as part of Al-Khatib's "National Coalition."

These are the "freedom fighters" then and now, that the US has been supporting, funding, and in fact arming. The most recent accusation of the US arming known-terrorists came from retired US Army General and former Special Forces Commander, William G. Boykin (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/former-special-forces-commander-was-us-running-guns-syrian-rebels-benghazi-cia-no), who claimed the US is not only arming terrorists in Syria, but they are doing so by running guns through the terror emirate (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/dead-us-ambassador-documented-creation.html) of Benghazi, Libya.

[gabosaurus]

http://i.qkme.me/3rp8hy.jpg

[jimnyc]

^^ Can't debate facts, post retarded pictures.

[revelarts]

http://thyblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/barackpresidentbush.jpg

jokes on all of us

[jimnyc]

jokes on all of us

What about you, Rev, can you tell us where the TONS and TONS of chemical weapons went? Most weren't weaponized yet, so they will last a LONG time. They were in barrels and accounted for in 1998 - but Saddam and company REFUSED to account for them when the UN and others demanded such. To this day they remain missing. Out of sight, out of mind, and they therefore never existed? Or will you be another who just 'hopes' they were buried or destroyed? In MY line of thinking, their refusal to account for them was enough to send in troops to do an accounting for them.

[Robert A Whit]

I watch a lot of CSPAN and notice how the Obama admin NEVA DUN NUTIN RONG.

No matter what it is, they deflect in testimony and dodge for all they are worth. They make up so many excuses.

Congress can't find out a thing talking to any of the Obama bunch.

[Little-Acorn]

Ths is what, the 312th scandal that will bring Obama down?

Republicans, concentrate on electing conservatives. It's the only thing you haven't tried since the early 80s.

[revelarts]

What about you, Rev, can you tell us where the TONS and TONS of chemical weapons went? Most weren't weaponized yet, so they will last a LONG time. They were in barrels and accounted for in 1998 - but Saddam and company REFUSED to account for them when the UN and others demanded such. To this day they remain missing. Out of sight, out of mind, and they therefore never existed? Or will you be another who just 'hopes' they were buried or destroyed? In MY line of thinking, their refusal to account for them was enough to send in troops to do an accounting for them.

I don't know where it went but , i do not think it was worth sending in troops and spending billions for it.
Saddam was no threat to us. or even a serious threat to Israel. It was/is a horrible waste of blood and treasure. Afghanistan too.

[jimnyc]

I don't know where it went but , i do not think it was worth sending in troops and spending billions for it.
Saddam was no threat to us. or even a serious threat to Israel. It was/is a horrible waste of blood and treasure. Afghanistan too.

I think all peoples are worthy of protection, especially under a dictatorship. Then add in 12 years of laughing at the international community. Then add in the missing WMD's. Sometimes we protect the weak by getting rid of the powerful who go off the reserve. And yes, I know you and a few others may say "why don't we go into ALL of these other places then too...". And my answer is - whether our military goes into example A or not, has nothing to do with the legitimacy of example B.

[revelarts]

I think all peoples are worthy of protection, especially under a dictatorship. Then add in 12 years of laughing at the international community. Then add in the missing WMD's. Sometimes we protect the weak by getting rid of the powerful who go off the reserve. And yes, I know you and a few others may say "why don't we go into ALL of these other places then too...". And my answer is - whether our military goes into example A or not, has nothing to do with the legitimacy of example B.

and if A and B a illegit?
That the way i see it. Especially since we are buddy buddy with sooo many petty dictators that are not even close to a threat to us. what one more.
it makes no sense to me at all. and to lie about the threat to convince people of some thin legitimacy for war is just criminal.

[jimnyc]

and if A and B a illegit?
That the way i see it. Especially since we are buddy buddy with sooo many petty dictators that are not even close to a threat to us. what one more.
it makes no sense to me at all. and to lie about the threat to convince people of some thin legitimacy for war is just criminal.

For them not to be legitimate, they would still need to stand on their own merits and looked at individually. With that said, you now have to determine what makes a war/invasion/protection "legit". Everyone will have their own opinion.

It's just that yours sucks! :lol:

Just fucking with ya, Rev!

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelarts http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625656#post625656)

I don't know where it went but , i do not think it was worth sending in troops and spending billions for it.
Saddam was no threat to us. or even a serious threat to Israel. It was/is a horrible waste of blood and treasure. Afghanistan too.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625658#post625658)

I think all peoples are worthy of protection, especially under a dictatorship. Then add in 12 years of laughing at the international community. Then add in the missing WMD's. Sometimes we protect the weak by getting rid of the powerful who go off the reserve. And yes, I know you and a few others may say "why don't we go into ALL of these other places then too...". And my answer is - whether our military goes into example A or not, has nothing to do with the legitimacy of example B.


(announcement; forgive the appearance of rambling but this stuff is serious)

When you boil the dirt out of the sock till it is clean, what you end up with is that one can justify a war for self defense, one can justify a war if the purpose is to free humans and for few other reasons that I am aware of.

I too do do not like wars. When the Afghanistan war broke out, I did not really understand it based on the press or the govt. reports. I admit it. I had the idea the USA invaded Afghanistan and our men were the cowboys doing the fighting. Some of it happened to be our men shooting but the actual war plan was for the locals to do the fighting to free their own country but we put our might behind them.

The democrats protested that Bush yanked troops away from Afghanistan but those few troops that were in both places early on were so few it did not matter. Senior officers working the war in Afghanistan turned to Iraq but what few grunts were in Afghanistan did not get sent to Iraq early on.

Most who hate war in Iraq seem to not mind the other war.

Thus let's go back to the point Bush announced the Iraq war.

Bush told us that the war started and it was to get rid of Saddam and deliver freedom to the Iraqis.

We think he did it for WMD but that is not what he told us.

So, what losses did Franks have? I believe his total combat losses were about 130.

So guys, you were down another path but for my buck, If there is any justification, it has to be for me at least, the idea of freeing humans.

I only count the 130 lost because after Franks defeated Saddam, it was much later that the other killings took place and that was during occupation rather than combat.

Bush was asked by General Franks to make the announcement that combat ended and the reason was the NGOS would not enter Iraq to help ahead of that announcement. Bush figured NGOS could come in. Bush had an angle and it was to prevent the Iraqis from seeing our troops as occupiers.

[revelarts]

(announcement; forgive the appearance of rambling but this stuff is serious)

When you boil the dirt out of the sock till it is clean, what you end up with is that one can justify a war for self defense, one can justify a war if the purpose is to free humans and for few other reasons that I am aware of.

I too do do not like wars. When the Afghanistan war broke out, I did not really understand it based on the press or the govt. reports. I admit it. I had the idea the USA invaded Afghanistan and our men were the cowboys doing the fighting. Some of it happened to be our men shooting but the actual war plan was for the locals to do the fighting to free their own country but we put our might behind them.

The democrats protested that Bush yanked troops away from Afghanistan but those few troops that were in both places early on were so few it did not matter. Senior officers working the war in Afghanistan turned to Iraq but what few grunts were in Afghanistan did not get sent to Iraq early on.

Most who hate war in Iraq seem to not mind the other war.

Thus let's go back to the point Bush announced the Iraq war.

Bush told us that the war started and it was to get rid of Saddam and deliver freedom to the Iraqis.

We think he did it for WMD but that is not what he told us.

So, what losses did Franks have? I believe his total combat losses were about 130.

So guys, you were down another path but for my buck, If there is any justification, it has to be for me at least, the idea of freeing humans.

I only count the 130 lost because after Franks defeated Saddam, it was much later that the other killings took place and that was during occupation rather than combat.

Bush was asked by General Franks to make the announcement that combat ended and the reason was the NGOS would not enter Iraq to help ahead of that announcement. Bush figured NGOS could come in. Bush had an angle and it was to prevent the Iraqis from seeing our troops as occupiers.


Bush quotes pre Iraq war speeches link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448852#post448852) to previous thread.

[jimnyc]

Bush quotes pre Iraq war speeches link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448852#post448852) to previous thread.

And considering the crap was hitting the fan over there since the late 80's at the very least, that's hardly surprising.

[Robert A Whit]

Bush quotes pre Iraq war speeches link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448852#post448852) to previous thread.

I won't look at that. I know he said he was freeing humans and getting rid of Saddam. No need to go all over hundreds of things said.

I also know he did not plan to be there for long.

[revelarts]

I won't look at that. I know he said he was freeing humans and getting rid of Saddam. No need to go all over hundreds of things said.

I also know he did not plan to be there for long.

lol!
ok don't let the facts cloud your memory.