Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.Dear, there is no playing coy in politics; only clueless and Causeless shills do that.Facilitating weapons of mass destruction?
- Confirmed: Weapons Were Moving Through Benghazi to Syria
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3...se-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.
The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.
That video had anything to do with the attackreally? can you link to the specific lies she said in the hearing and why you are calling them lies?The "witch" kicked your ass last week. You want some more?So we should spend more money on a 9th Benghazi witch hunt? I`m in favor of 4 more investigations. I predicted 12 in my office poll.I didn't see but ONE.
One of the Democrats on that committee didn't have a problem spending money to investigate steroids in baseball.
They've found the witch. If she would quit lying and be honorable by admitting she didn't do her job, nothing would necessary.
She couldn't kick her own ass. She lied her way through it. If you call that kicking ass, pucker up. She might give you some.
This is a sad video. The grand standing politicians let this thing get away from them.
We needed answers to why 4 Americans were left defenseless, not a bunch of hooey about dropping Hillaries poll numbers.
The mom, of course nails it.
She asked 'Why? Why wasnt there any help?..Why did they sacrifice my only child?... You cant understand, my only child was murdered and nobody will tell me why....He was the only thing that was going to help me when I get old. I am old now, who do I have to listen to? Whose going to help me now? He's not around and the government wont talk to me. "
It would have been great if the Benghazi Committee had tried to find out why there wasn't any help and what could be changed for the future instead of trying to hurt Hillary's poll numbers.
In the meantime, the GOP will try as hard as they can to abuse this poor woman by parading her around until they forget about her in November of next year.
I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.
The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.
The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.
Of which we have none now.Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.Dear, there is no playing coy in politics; only clueless and Causeless shills do that.
- Confirmed: Weapons Were Moving Through Benghazi to Syria
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3...se-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.
The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.
The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
Of which we have none now.Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ecc3...se-intel-panel-debunks-many-benghazi-theories
Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.
it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.
The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.
The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
This is a sad video. The grand standing politicians let this thing get away from them.
We needed answers to why 4 Americans were left defenseless, not a bunch of hooey about dropping Hillaries poll numbers.
The mom, of course nails it.
She asked 'Why? Why wasnt there any help?..Why did they sacrifice my only child?... You cant understand, my only child was murdered and nobody will tell me why....He was the only thing that was going to help me when I get old. I am old now, who do I have to listen to? Whose going to help me now? He's not around and the government wont talk to me. "
It would have been great if the Benghazi Committee had tried to find out why there wasn't any help and what could be changed for the future instead of trying to hurt Hillary's poll numbers.
In the meantime, the GOP will try as hard as they can to abuse this poor woman by parading her around until they forget about her in November of next year.
I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.
The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.
The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.
Did you watch the hearing? Probably not. Your questions were answered. Turns out Benghazi was a tragedy and a terrorist attack. I wish you low life conservatives showed a fraction of the anger at the terrorists who killed these people as you show HIllary. But you could care less about the terrorists, because this is your chance at winning in 2016. Despicable.
Liar.Of which we have none now.Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.it may depend if we want to quibble or not; diplomatic missions are usually considered territory of the Body administering that mission.
The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.
The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
This is a sad video. The grand standing politicians let this thing get away from them.
We needed answers to why 4 Americans were left defenseless, not a bunch of hooey about dropping Hillaries poll numbers.
The mom, of course nails it.
She asked 'Why? Why wasnt there any help?..Why did they sacrifice my only child?... You cant understand, my only child was murdered and nobody will tell me why....He was the only thing that was going to help me when I get old. I am old now, who do I have to listen to? Whose going to help me now? He's not around and the government wont talk to me. "
It would have been great if the Benghazi Committee had tried to find out why there wasn't any help and what could be changed for the future instead of trying to hurt Hillary's poll numbers.
In the meantime, the GOP will try as hard as they can to abuse this poor woman by parading her around until they forget about her in November of next year.
I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.
The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.
The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.
Did you watch the hearing? Probably not. Your questions were answered. Turns out Benghazi was a tragedy and a terrorist attack. I wish you low life conservatives showed a fraction of the anger at the terrorists who killed these people as you show HIllary. But you could care less about the terrorists, because this is your chance at winning in 2016. Despicable.
Liar.Of which we have none now.Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.The mission in Benghazi wasn't a permanent mission at the time of the attack. It was a temporary one.
The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
Here's a link from the National Review to a list of items I am also pissed at:Did you watch the hearing? Probably not. Your questions were answered. Turns out Benghazi was a tragedy and a terrorist attack. I wish you low life conservatives showed a fraction of the anger at the terrorists who killed these people as you show HIllary. But you could care less about the terrorists, because this is your chance at winning in 2016. Despicable.The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.It would have been great if the Benghazi Committee had tried to find out why there wasn't any help and what could be changed for the future instead of trying to hurt Hillary's poll numbers.
In the meantime, the GOP will try as hard as they can to abuse this poor woman by parading her around until they forget about her in November of next year.
excerpt:
"And all slain, it must never be forgotten, by jihadists carrying out what Clinton, Obama, and high-ranking national-security officials throughout the United States government knew full well was a planned terrorist attack, not a “protest” run amok and incited by “an awful Internet video.”
Read more at: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi Liar | National Review Online"
And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Of which we have none now.Yup.....and high risk.....so the lax security is unforgivable.
The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Of which we have none now.The security was in place based on modern COIN principles of light footprint tactics. Sure the security could have been higher, but it was a risk that we were willing to take and one we suffered for; It was worth taking though given the importance of maintaining an international presence in Benghazi.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
I thought you were putting the idea out that the Benghazi hearings were a clever plot by Hillary and the Democrats.Here's a link from the National Review to a list of items I am also pissed at:Did you watch the hearing? Probably not. Your questions were answered. Turns out Benghazi was a tragedy and a terrorist attack. I wish you low life conservatives showed a fraction of the anger at the terrorists who killed these people as you show HIllary. But you could care less about the terrorists, because this is your chance at winning in 2016. Despicable.The person is Hillary, period, she was the boss. she lost those four americans. her, period. she failed the lady and she doesn't think it is any big deal. And all of the libs who love Hillary give to shits. Low lifes is all libs are. I as an american want to know why she ignored reports. that's all? What was her plan when she learned four weeks ahead about the attack. Why is that so difficult for anyone to ask her.The truth is they were killed by religious lunatics and there was no way to get them help in time. You want to talk about why the 4 victims were at the embassy, or why there wasn't enough security, or what should be done in the future? Then call the office of one of the people in the Benghazi Committee, because none of them seem to give the slightest fuck about those things.I think they just wanted the truth....and they got nothing but bullshit from her.
excerpt:
"And all slain, it must never be forgotten, by jihadists carrying out what Clinton, Obama, and high-ranking national-security officials throughout the United States government knew full well was a planned terrorist attack, not a “protest” run amok and incited by “an awful Internet video.”
Read more at: Hillary Clinton, Benghazi Liar | National Review Online"
Yeah.....but didn't she look presidential the other day while she was being evasive, deceptive, ambiguous, astucious, beguiling, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, deluding, delusive, delusory, designing, disingenuous, fake, fallacious, false, fishy, foxy, fraudulent, illusory, imposturous, indirect, insidious, lying, misleading, oblique, phony, scheming, seeming, serpentine, shifty, slick, slippery, sly, sneaky, snide, specious, spurious, subtle, treacherous, tricky,......
You're looking only at dollars and body-counts. You aren't looking at logic, strategy, or political fallout. And fyi, Obama intentionally screwing up Iraq and Afghanistan cancels out the original mission goals. We have miscreants running our foreign policy. They are not competent.....or even remotely trustworthy.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Of which we have none now.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
You're looking only at dollars and body-counts. You aren't looking at logic, strategy, or political fallout. And fyi, Obama intentionally screwing up Iraq and Afghanistan cancels out the original mission goals. We have miscreants running our foreign policy. They are not competent.....or even remotely trustworthy.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.......due to lack of accountability inherent in the system for them exclusively.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Of which we have none now.
The principal is faulty. Now it has a name. I'll give it another name. RIDICULOUS.
Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.Not at all, the principle was based on lessons learned from the disaster that was the Iraq war and based on our relationship with the NTC and subsequent Libyan government. We don't get free reign in every country that we operate in; nor should we even desire it.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
Hypocritical on your part. I'm certain if the shoe were on the other foot...the media would be up in arms about this travesty.You're looking only at dollars and body-counts. You aren't looking at logic, strategy, or political fallout. And fyi, Obama intentionally screwing up Iraq and Afghanistan cancels out the original mission goals. We have miscreants running our foreign policy. They are not competent.....or even remotely trustworthy.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
I absolutely am looking at those things and logically, tactically, and politically, it has all proven a far greater success. I'm also not sure why you would be so dismissive of US body counts (and domestic civilian body counts). Seems a little hypocritical given the discourse surrounding the death of US citizens in Benghazi.
Hypocritical on your part. I'm certain if the shoe were on the other foot...the media would be up in arms about this travesty.You're looking only at dollars and body-counts. You aren't looking at logic, strategy, or political fallout. And fyi, Obama intentionally screwing up Iraq and Afghanistan cancels out the original mission goals. We have miscreants running our foreign policy. They are not competent.....or even remotely trustworthy.And we agreed to that bullshit?It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
I absolutely am looking at those things and logically, tactically, and politically, it has all proven a far greater success. I'm also not sure why you would be so dismissive of US body counts (and domestic civilian body counts). Seems a little hypocritical given the discourse surrounding the death of US citizens in Benghazi.
Hard to believe you actually want to kill more of our diplomatic corps to prove your point. Or is "Oh well .......shit happens "?
How about no costs and no body count.The number one point here should be that following this faulty policy is too risky. But because it sounds warm and fuzzy....you folks won't change....because talking about is very impressive. Who cares if people are sacrificed. We did what the UN thinks is sound....and having worked with those walking calamities personally, if we keep putting people in the White house that subscribe to this insanity, we will continue to suffer the same fate. The worst thing about it is as long as we have a biased sycophantic media......Democrats will continue to pull this stupidity.And we agreed to that bullshit?Liar.
That principle was hatched on college campuses in classrooms, not from lessons learned. That principal was tried in Somalia in 93', and failed miserably. Everywhere in the Middle East it is attempted will get the same result. It plays into the hands of terrorists. Gives them soft targets they can attack with very little risk. Essentially, portable "GUN-FREE ZONES"......better known as easy kill-zones for terrorist attacks
It's cute how you need that to be a lie. It is a lessons learned process that has been building for some time. The UN even called a committee on it just before the start of the Iraq War (SC/7295) to look at efforts in Afghanistan. The results of it were the advocating of a smaller footprint style tactics which minimized international working staff and instead substituted them for national staff within the host country. It was also meant to steer us away from attempts at direct nation building efforts, which largely failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The focus instead of invasion was modern COIN doctrines focused on special operations and use of intelligence agents coupled with air power.
Even the UNSCR mandate that the NTC agreed to stipulated a light footprint and forbade boots on the ground in conflict. The transitional Libyan government specifically wanted a light international presence on the ground.
Obviously politics is more important to this administration than taking care of their own people. If I was president I wouldn't establish a presence there unless my security requirements were achievable. Diplomacy takes a back seat to security.....or didn't the Iranian Hostage Crisis teach you a thing.
Absolutely. It was also what the Libyan government wanted; and so far it has turned out far better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the loss of our ambassador, we have suffered FAR fewer casualties, and it has cost FAR less in monetary and political capital terms. It also means that the Libyans themselves (instead of us) get to own the revolution and transition.
So let me get this straight:
Lower body count
Lower financial cost
Better results
Lower political cost
Better relationship building
Truly multilateral
Far shorter in duration
But too risky? Especially in the face of the "risk" of Afghanistan and Iraq? Come on. You're just trying too hard now.
