Politics 2014

[Hixter]

Same as drones, no?

Very much so. I'm not sure that I can think of a single American president in my lifetime who didn't tangentially participate in the deaths of other human beings. A few off the top of my head:

 

Kennedy: Bay of Pigs

Johnson: Vietnam

Nixon: Cambodia

Ford: Mayaguez

Carter: Iran hostage rescue

Reagan: Libya bombing

Bush the First: Panama

Clinton: Afghanistan & Sudan

Bush the Second: Iraq

Obama: drone strikes (against American citizens, even)

 

And then there are the leaders of many of our closest allies ... we may need to build more prisons and gallows.

[NoJ]

If I recall correctly, outside of Johnson's fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, only bush the younger (and his junta) willfully misled the country into war. That's the unforgiveable crime here.

[KevinG]

If I recall correctly, outside of Johnson's fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, only bush the younger (and his junta) willfully misled the country into war. That's the unforgiveable crime here.

 

And that distinction needs to be made and shouted.  The wars / militarily actions of other administrations my have not been correct, nor moral for that matter, but they were not predicated on a lie.  

[Atticus]

I can't think of anything that would help the country's spirit and sense of national unity more than a giant clusterfuck litigation over what happened in Iraq.  That will help solve a lot of our pressing problems with poverty, debt, terrorism and civil rights and will probably also get the media back to reporting true news rather than a 24/7 pundit porno. 

[Hixter]

The wars / militarily actions of other administrations my have not been correct, nor moral for that matter, but they were not predicated on a lie.  

No, the invasion of Iraq was predicated by poor intelligence, not a lie. And the same can be said for pretty much every military misjudgment of the last 50 years, from Kennedy's assumption that Cubans would rise up against Castro after the Bay of Pigs invasion, to Bush the First's bombing of a civilian shelter in Iraq, to Clinton's bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, to Obama's errant drone strikes against wedding parties in Pakistan.

I can't think of anything that would help the country's spirit and sense of national unity more than a giant clusterfuck litigation over what happened in Iraq. 

Amen. It would get very uncomfortable for a lot of politicians who aren't Republicans, too, so it's unlikely to ever happen.

[tinnitus photography]

I can't think of anything that would help the country's spirit and sense of national unity more than a giant clusterfuck litigation over what happened in Benghazi.  That will help solve a lot of our pressing problems with poverty, debt, terrorism and civil rights and will probably also get the media back to reporting true news rather than a 24/7 pundit porno. 

ftfy

[Hixter]

ftfy

I somewhat agree, but there are a few notable differences between Iraq and Benghazi, the main one being that the president responsible for Iraq has been out of office for 6 years, while the responsibilities for Benghazi fall with the sitting president and the person who is considered a frontrunner for the next presidency. If Obama and Hillary were already out of politics for good, I wouldn't want to see much effort wasted on the Benghazi incident.

[tinnitus photography]

that, and the scope of Iraq and Benghazi are just a TINY bit different. just a smidge.

[ih8music]

^ no shit.

[lost highway]

No, the invasion of Iraq was predicated by poor intelligence, not a lie.

That's more than a little generous. I'm not sure if Powell would even agree with it.

[Atticus]

ftfy

 

No argument here

[KevinG]

I somewhat agree, but there are a few notable differences between Iraq and Benghazi, the main one being that the president responsible for Iraq has been out of office for 6 years, while the responsibilities for Benghazi fall with the sitting president and the person who is considered a frontrunner for the next presidency. If Obama and Hillary were already out of politics for good, I wouldn't want to see much effort wasted on the Benghazi incident.

 

I wouldn't want them to waste any time on Benghazi, considering they have already wasted enough time and recently concluded that CIA and military acted properly and asserted no wrong doing by the Obama administration.  

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2014/11/21/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

 

 

No, the invasion of Iraq was predicated by poor intelligence, not a lie. 

 

But of course a Senate Intelligence committee saw it differently

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?_r=0

 

and just for fun

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/twenty-lies-about-the-iraq-war/5327386

 

If it wasn't a lie (or lies) they had some pretty terrible (down right incompetence) that lead to Iraq.  And of course this straight up incompetence was same agency that Dick Cheney completed trusted (and still does) that they did the right thing with "enhanced interrogation."

 

But it is also good to remember that he hasn't read the report, but feels it necessary to comment on it anyways.  

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-cheney-i-havent-read-cia-torture-report-but-its-full-of-crap/

[Hixter]

I wouldn't want them to waste any time on Benghazi, considering they have already wasted enough time and recently concluded that CIA and military acted properly and asserted no wrong doing by the Obama administration.  

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2014/11/21/house-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories

The chairman of the intelligence committee -- the author of the report -- says differently in his op-ed:

 

The Obama administration’s White House and State Department actions before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attack on September 11, 2012, ranged from incompetence to deplorable political manipulation in the midst of an election season. 

.

.

.

For months after the attacks, senior White House officials, including President Obama, grossly misled the American people about what happened and why.  I believe that they did this to further their own inaccurate view that they had al Qa’ida “on the run”; and with an election looming they did not want to be responsible for a terrorist attack on their watch.

.

.

.

Some have said the report exonerates the State Department and White House.  It does not. 

.

.

.

Our report lays the groundwork for the Benghazi Select Committee, which I voted to create, to pursue vigorously the many unanswered questions about the Obama White House and State Department actions to finally get to the truth on those issues. The Intelligence Committee’s fact-based investigation will pave the way for that work.

 

 

But of course a Senate Intelligence committee saw it differently

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?_r=0

Some choice wording from that report:

 

The report on the prewar statements about Iraq found that on some key issues — most notably Iraq’s purported nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs — the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. 

.

.

.

Mr. Bond and four other Republicans on the committee sharply dissented from the report’s findings and suggested the investigation was a partisan smokescreen to obscure the real story: that Central Intelligence Agency failed the Bush administration by delivering intelligence assessments to policymakers that have since been discredited.

 

In a detailed minority report, four of those Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy and their own campaign of cherry-picking — namely, refusing to include misleading public statements by such top Democrats as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Mr. Rockefeller.

 

As an example, they pointed to an October 2002 speech by Mr. Rockefeller, who declared to his Senate colleagues that he had arrived at the “inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks, and we should not minimize the risks, we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with the threat.”

[KevinG]

The chairman of the intelligence committee -- the author of the report -- says differently in his op-ed:

 

The chairman is entitled to his opinion. Doesn't mean it is true. Otherwise this information would have been included in the report. This a report put out by a GOP controlled committee. They felt the chairman's opinion didn't warrant inclusion in the report.

 

I think we should trust the findings of the committee, just as we trust things like grand juries.

 

But I guess if people continue to shout Benghazi there will be idiots who believe that it is some sort of scandal.

 

As for Iraq report, I never said the Democrats were blameless. But the scope and breadth of the intelligence failures are so great, either the CIA are complete morons, or someone lied to someone.

 

But Benghazi!

[lost highway]

"substantiated"

[Hixter]

But the scope and breadth of the intelligence failures are so great, either the CIA are complete morons, or someone lied to someone.

Obtaining reliable intelligence from inside secretive regimes is very, very difficult, and it's not easy distinguishing between legitimate sources of intel and those who have an ulterior motive. Add in the cover-your-ass aspect of working for a government agency that demands that every tidbit be reported, with little chance of substantiation, and you have the makings of a potential disaster. From what I've read, analysts working on bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan were anywhere from 100% to less than 50% certain of his location. It's a tough call for a president to make when the intelligence is so iffy.

[Hixter]

Looks like there's a hostage situation in Sydney, Australia. Many hostages, 2 gunmen and an ISIS banner hanging in the window. Hopefully the authorities can end it without any hostages injured.

[ih8music]

Another day, another round of Cheney lies and defense of torture. Smgdh.

[KevinG]

Obtaining reliable intelligence from inside secretive regimes is very, very difficult, and it's not easy distinguishing between legitimate sources of intel and those who have an ulterior motive. Add in the cover-your-ass aspect of working for a government agency that demands that every tidbit be reported, with little chance of substantiation, and you have the makings of a potential disaster. From what I've read, analysts working on bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan were anywhere from 100% to less than 50% certain of his location. It's a tough call for a president to make when the intelligence is so iffy.

 

I don't disagree.  Intelligence gathering is very hard, but if you look at the run up to the war there were some massive failings by the CIA.  And the administration at that time took that faulty information and totally ran with it, and convinced the American people that this war was needed and justified.  And thousands of people died.  It is a tough call, but just when it is a tough call doesn't mean the President should be held blameless when that call is made.  

 

It is funny you seem to be giving the previous administration a pass in regards to Iraq and their failings, but yet you seem the need to hold the current administration to a different standard with regards to Benghazi.  

 

I know you said if you wouldn't want to see much effort in Benghazi (if Obama and Hillary were out of politics), but there seems to be a difference in your attitudes.  

 

 

Another day, another round of Cheney lies and defense of torture. Smgdh.

 

Did you expect anything different.  He is just plain wrong and lies just continue to come out his mouth.  

[lost highway]

I can't get past the disconnect between a libertarian impulse that suggests every wasted tax dollar is a sin against the American people, and a compulsive allegiance to a defense department that spends more, and costs actual human lives.

 

That will never stop being weird to me.

[Hixter]

a compulsive allegiance to a defense department that spends more

Spends more than what?

[lost highway]

More than the safety net programs some people are always moaning about, or education, or even medicaid for that matter. None of these projects rely on nebulous intelligence reports from overseas or myth-making to try and trick some poor kid into joining.

[Hixter]

More than the safety net programs some people are always moaning about, or education, or even medicaid for that matter. None of these projects rely on nebulous intelligence reports from overseas or myth-making to try and trick some poor kid into joining.

We don't spend as much on defense as you think we do:

 

 

myth-making to try and trick some poor kid into joining. 

I was neither poor nor tricked, but I can honestly say that enlisting in the military was the best life decision I ever made. Probably 50% of my friends are veterans and I don't think any of them would say that they were tricked into joining. They enjoyed their service, they are proud of their service and they benefited from their service.

[KevinG]

I can't get past the disconnect between a libertarian impulse that suggests every wasted tax dollar is a sin against the American people, and a compulsive allegiance to a defense department that spends more, and costs actual human lives.

 

That will never stop being weird to me.

I don't think that is a libertarian impulse. I have always thought libertarians were more isolationist in their world view. I think it is more of a Neo Conservative view.

 

But yes you are right it is weird, the sheer willingness to throw money at conflicts overseas/military, but be these deficit hawks when it comes to any domestic spending.

[Hixter]

More than the safety net programs some people are always moaning about, or education, or even medicaid for that matter. 

No, we spend more on all of those things than we do on the military.