DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 07, 2013, 05:06:52 PM
-
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weq7hY0OhKs#)
Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
The 5 o'clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta's recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.
As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, "Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour.
And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/panetta-obama-absent-night-benghazi_700405.html)
-
What's this you say??
General on Benghazi: 'We Never Received a Request for Support from the State Department' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaesNmEZ_B8#)
-
And the buck stopped with.....who again?? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-word-hillary-during-benghazi-attack_700410.html)
Neither the secretary of defense nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke to the secretary of state during the 8-hour attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, "In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?"
"We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton," Panetta responded.
"And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?" Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this. Watch the video below:
Panetta, Dempsey Did Not Talk to Clinton On Sept. 11, 2013 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cysKzNFwaSU#)
So...how's that "highest priority" of bringing those that were behind this TERRORIST ATTACK on the ANNIVERSARY of 911 coming along?
-
move along now, nothing to see here....oh look shiny!
-
lol.......yep
-
Lindsey Graham Hammers Leon Panetta & Gen Dempsey on Benghazi and not getting troops there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNw9drCmb64#ws)
Yep, move along, nothing to see here
-
When ya have time...watch this
Press Conference with Walter Jones & Retired Military on HCR107 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUl_N66HRI4#ws)
-
O look!
There are still two people who give a shit!
-
So you agree then that all that garbage by Hillary, Obama, and the Dems, about bringing to justice those terrorists that attacked and killed our people, along with trying to find out how this happened, could have been prevented, and who dropped the ball, was all BS. I mean who gives a damn now, right? Move on, nothing to see here.....oooo, look shiny over there
-
Everything that needs to be known about this is already known.
This is just seen as an opportunity for clowns like McCain, Cruz and Graham to play macho macho man, and silly rightwingers to continue in hissyfit mode.
-
Everything that needs to be known about this is already known.
Nope, not even close. Here's a few things that still "need to be known", to better prevent this from happening again, and to help bring those to justice, those that attacked us. Unless you're now on the train that doesn't give a damn about that either
- Who received the requests for more Security from the ambassador?
- Who was responsible for deciding not to send in assistance, when it was requested at the time of the attack?
- Why were measures not taken to bolster security on the anniversary of the greatest terrorist attack this country ever was hit with?
- Why wasn't the area secured immediately after the attack?
- Why was the FBI prevented from investigating immediately?
Just a few of the questions we'd be asking ANY president and their administration, D or R after their name
-
If killing the ambassidor , and some other Americans ,burning some embassy buildings makes no diffrence, does this make Al Quieda as an organisation sorry that they wasted their time doing it?
-
Al Qaeda is a lost cause.
Nothing they have done so far has enabled them to come even one baby step closer to overthrowing the Sauds, causing a unification of Islam under a caliph, or ending the cultural domination of the US and the West in the Muslim world.
-
Al Qaeda is a lost cause.
Yea, that's why they managed to killed the 1st american Ambassador in 30years. that's why they're regrouping and rearming in multiple countries, because they're a lost cause
Yea, stick that head in the sand with the blinders on, to boot. Sorry, Bin Laden was only the poster child. He no longer was in operational command, so the big news of taking him out was great, but was in no way a "death blow" to AlQeada. In fact, the current placating policies of this Administration, our "scheduled" withdraw of Iraq & Afghanistan, coupled with their blatant disrespect they have of Israel only emboldens them
Not to mention the above questions still go unanswered
Bravo
-
Stupid reasoning. Al Qaeda's purpose is not to kill ambassadors.They could kill every ambassador on the planet and still be no closer to their goals. Of course, the US needs to defend itself against these crazies.
The US has no more reason to suck up to Israel than it does to suck up to Armenia. I fail to see any reason whatever to go along with Netanyahu's evil plan to steal the West Bank from the Palestinians. I am neither pro Israel nor anti-Israel: there is no reason at all for any American to shamelessly suck up to a manipulating schemer like Netanyahu.
-
Who cares what the core aims of Al Queda are.
If they were a totally political group that was trying to change the government of Saudi Arabia we would probly ignore them.
It is because they have the illusion that their cause requires killing Americans that we are concerned with them.
If they were killing fifty times as many Americans as they are their aims would be advanced not a whit , this is true, so they always were self defeating, but because they continue to think that Americans dieing is good for what they want , it doesn't matter how wrong they are about that .
If they don't smarten up , we need to kill them.
-
Al Qaeda's purpose is not to kill ambassadors.They could kill every ambassador on the planet and still be no closer to their goals. Of course, the US needs to defend itself against these crazies.
Another oxymoron application. No one claimed AlQeada's purpose was to kill Ambassadors, its purpose is to kill westerners that don't convert or allow themselves to be subjugated by their mutated version of Islam. Americans in particular. And if given a chance to mount an attack on the anniversary of 911, and take out a prominent American (in title), even if they didn't know he was there at the complex, its a good bet they would take it.
And they did, so of course the U.S. needs to defend itself against those crazies. We can start by addressing the questions that would have better done exactly that, which you appear to not give a damn about, so obviously you don't give a damn if they kill more Americans, so long as your prescious political party and their community organizer & chief are left alone
-
But then, the righties claim that we should NOT kill Al Qaeda members if they are American citizens.
If Obama were not president, of course, they would never say this. They were all gung ho for torture and invading Iraq and all sorts of stuff when Juniorbush was in charge.
Everything that needs to be known about Benghazi, is known. There is no reason to hold these idiotic hearings other than to entertain the least literate 'baggers.
-
But then, the righties claim that we should NOT kill Al Qaeda members if they are American citizens.
That is not an accurate statement. I know my objections to killing American Al-Queda members has to do with due process. I am not comfortable with placing the decision of life or death from the deathrays of a drone with a man who also is seriously intent on disarming law abiding american citizens.
Capturing an Al Queda memebr and tying him to a terrorist act and then trying them in a court of law seems a more equitable solution.
Substitute the term Al-Queda with Mafia, KKK, Communist, Anarchist or Weatherman and see if you come to the same conclusion.
-
Everything that needs to be known about Benghazi, is known. There is no reason to hold these idiotic hearings other than to entertain the least literate 'baggers.
..and to get to the bottom of how it happened, why it happened, to prevent it from happening again, and to bring those that attacked us, to justice. But then again, who gives a damn about that either, right?
-
But then, the righties claim that we should NOT kill Al Qaeda members if they are American citizens.
That is not an accurate statement. I know my objections to killing American Al-Queda members has to do with due process. I am not comfortable with placing the decision of life or death from the deathrays of a drone with a man who also is seriously intent on disarming law abiding american citizens.
Capturing an Al Queda memebr and tying him to a terrorist act and then trying them in a court of law seems a more equitable solution.
Substitute the term Al-Queda with Mafia, KKK, Communist, Anarchist or Weatherman and see if you come to the same conclusion.
I disagree.
The fight against Al Quieda is much more like warfare than it is like keeping the peace.
Theere is no potential for capturing the whole gang, nor even enough of it to keep it crippled.
Al Queda is always trying to present themselves as the side of rightiousness, and then they kill the defenseless, it is unfortunate that they find plenty of gullability to present this to.
The US does not need to pretend that we are involved in anything other than a war of self defense. Killing those gulled into joining Al Quieda puts us on the side of Darwin.
Giving trials to the members of AlQuieda is not feasable ,the captured should be held till the war is over, the hard to catch should be shot by whatever wepon is most appropriate.
Let it be known that joining Al Quieda is equivelent to renouncing American citizenship.
If American members of Al Quieda object to that , let them surrender themselves to a US Marshall and fight it in court.
-
So all i need to do if i want to kill Sirs is claim he is Al Queda and wham bam thank you ma'am and a couple grand donation to Obama and Kaboom, he is gone?
-
You want me out of the saloon, that badly? :o
-
So all i need to do if i want to kill Sirs is claim he is Al Queda and wham bam thank you ma'am and a couple grand donation to Obama and Kaboom, he is gone?
Has Sirs renounced his American citizenship by joining Al Quieda or in any other fashion?
May I remind you that hundreds of thousands of Americans were shot for joining a disloyal group and making war on the USA already, or does you criticism extend to President Lincon also?
-
Sirs does not need to renounce his American Citizenship to join Al Qaeda nor does he need to actually belong to Al Qaeda for the President of the United States to order his termination according to the Justice Department, No need of a panel to review the kill order. You seem to be of the opinion that is fine and dandy. I don't
Those who Lincoln ordered Union troops against, were in rebellion, had denounced their citizenship by joining the Confederates and had attacked federal property.
-
Those who Lincoln ordered Union troops against, were in rebellion, had denounced their citizenship by joining the Confederates and had attacked federal property.
How diffrent is joining Al Queda?
If the war on terror is a war then the rules of war apply and the enemy gets shot when recognised.
If the point is law enforcement then every effort to bring them in alive should be exausted before deadly force is used , like when they found Clide Barrow.
-
In the case of the Civil War, as I have said, logic was on the side of the Confederacy. If a state could voluntarily join the union, then it should have had the right to secede from the Union.
Morally, slavery was immoral and wrong. Also a bit hypocritical, since the nation had agreed to end the importation of slaves, but still allowed for their purchase and sale within the boundaries of the country. It was illogical to say that slavery was moral and the basis of the economy in half the country and immoral and curse to the country in the other half.
Politically, the South pushed the Northerners with the Dred Scott decision and the fugitive slave laws too far.
The poor Whites who did most of the dying were the suckers, since they had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose. Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, had the proper solution for a young man from a slave state: leave it all behind and light out for the territories. When surrounded by insanity, one should always do one's best to flee.
Al Qaeda is not really concerned with internal American politics. They simply want to return the Muslim countries to some idealized XIV century caliphate, which is far more unrealistic that Reagan's and now the teabaggers' desire to return to the "good old days" of the 1950's. I agree that Al Qaeda is in a state of war with the US, and therefore membership in Al Qaeda makes them subject to the rules of war rather than the rules of civil law. I don't see where American citizenship is much of an issue if one joins a terrorist organization pledged to kill Americans.
-
How different is the war on terror from the war on drugs or even the war on poverty.
Drone attacks on all these fronts OK with you?
-
The war on drugs is not a real war at all, neither was the war on poverty.
And of course, I am against drones being used to spy on Americans here in this country.
-
The war on drugs is not a real war at all, neither was the war on poverty.
And of course, I am against drones being used to spy on Americans here in this country.
And i am against using drones to kill Americans.
-
I think they have offed a couple of Arabs that happened to have US passports.
I agree it would have been nicer to have arrested them.
No one asked for my opinion.
Too bad.
-
Under what circumstance are Americans properly killed without trial first?
If the police were never allowed to shoot , just running from them would always be the best choice.
If the war against Al Queda has to stop using drones and targeting individuals , what is practical to replace this with?
-
We have a guy in Southern California who has been tracked by drones, has killed 3 people and threatened to kill more, is he eligible to be vaporized by a drone, on orders from the President? or is he to be afforded the protections of the Constitution and the rule of law?
-
How certain are you that he is guilty?
If a drone were to see him in comission of a serious crime or getting away or even about to commit another murder.....
....And you were at the drones controlls, would you crash the drone into him ?
-
I am not certain he is guilty, and that is the point of my objections to instant justice via a drone and sanctioned by one man.
-
During WWII my father shot at a lot of German citizens and a few Italians and French.
It is not likely that he was introduced to any of them first, I am certain that none got a trial first.
My Father was and Anti Aircraft firecontrollman and was part of the invasion of Sicilly , on one very sad occasion a flight of Army aircraft wandered off their assigned track and passed over the fleet , so they were shot up with heavy loss.
I am certain that shooting the US Army transports was an error and regrettable instance of fratricide, but no one got fired , in the course of war , shooting at the unidentified is ordinary.
All the other planes that passed over the fleet that day were German bombers, the faster these got shot the better for survival.
-
Interesting story.
Renegade cop. US Citizen. Vaporize him, yes or no?
-
I would imagine that this guy will be dealt with as armed murderers are usually dealt within the US. He will not be vaporized by a drone, but he is likely to be shot if he does not throw down his gun and surrender.
-
Interesting story.
Renegade cop. US Citizen. Vaporize him, yes or no?
no
-
Interesting story.
Renegade cop. US Citizen. Vaporize him, yes or no?
This is not an appropriate yes or no question.
Capture is preferred , but any means of stopping him is better than having him repeat his crime.
So ther are three real choices he surrenders ,a nonleathal attack stops him or he is stopped by a leathal attack.
All these three are Yes-get him, what would be NO-, ... ignore him he will go away?
It is hard to surender to a Drone , but other than that I don't see why a drone is a lot diffrent than a rifle.
-
I think if he shoots at an officer, and the officer shoots back with a rifle, that's self defense. All the better if we can save the tax payers some dollars. The drone however is literally judge, jury, and executioner. I understand what Bt is referring to, and would tend to agree with him on this. A known/confirmed American citizen does get the luxury of Constitutional protections & due process.
That said, an American citizen that knowingly recuses their ties to the U.S. or takes up arms with a foreign enemy against us....then drones away
-
On numerous occasions, murderers have been gunned down without being specifically requested to surrender. Probably most of them were mentally disturbed like that guy that was holding the kid hostage in Alabama. Of course, true insanity is vastly different from legal insanity, which always seems to involve being to hire a very expensive lawyer.
If they had sent a drone to take out the same guy, the result would have been identical. However, it would have been creepier and would therefore have been a really dumb thing to do, as it would cause great expenses to be paid for hearings and all that crap. It would have therefore been economically and politically inefficient.
-
On numerous occasions, murderers have been gunned down without being specifically requested to surrender. Probably most of them were mentally disturbed like that guy that was holding the kid hostage in Alabama. If they had sent a drone to take out the same guy, the result would have been identical
On those rare occasions, its ususally someone running or shooting back, or in your above scenario, a person barricaded in a shelter. We're talking about picking an unsuspecting target, determining its guilt, and then obliterating them, as they walk their dog, or driving their car to the post office. FAR from "identical"
-
We're talking about picking an unsuspecting target, determining its guilt, and then obliterating them, as they walk their dog, or driving their car to the post office. FAR from "identical"
===========================================================
since when has this happened in the US? N E V E R.
Who were the postoffice visiting, car driving, dogwalking individuals that were obliterated you are talking about, anyway?
I know of no such people. I bet they are fictitious.
Who are you to tell me what I am talking about, anyway?
-
We're talking about picking an unsuspecting target, determining its guilt, and then obliterating them, as they walk their dog, or driving their car to the post office. FAR from "identical"
===========================================================
since when has this happened in the US? N E V E R.
Not talking about geography.....we're talking about U.S. Citizenship. You're the one who brought up the fella in Alabama, as some example of using a creepy drone. Point being that your examples and what's being discussed, in how drones are being considered used, are no where near identical