Reagan's Benghazi

[Howey]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

 

[bedowin62]

Reagan didnt lie or cover-up anything like obama did

try again

 

[RandallFlagg]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

First it was Bush. Now it's Reagan.


Deflect much Nancy Boy?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You progressive twirps are absolutely hopeless.

 

[bedowin62]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

that it was caused by a video


gosh you're stupid

 

[buckeye45_73]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

the video cause it. if you believe that, your a fucking tard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

 

[bendog]

he may not have lied, and in fact, he probably didn't. We knew it was continuous, well armed assault by people who knew the layout. But, people pissed off over the video could have pulled that off.

But he didn't disclose the email that proved the WH "spun" the story. Of course we all, including Graham, knew it all along.

The Benghazi Email « The Dish

 

[Mustang]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

All too true. But the modern-day RW of the Republican Party doesn't care about what's true and what isn't true, or about what's right or what's wrong. They only care about regaining power. And any and all tactics that they believe will aid them in that effort, even if it's not demonstrably true, is a perfectly fine avenue of attack in order to pursue their agenda.

 

[Redfish]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSooz2wXpes]Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack as Coffins Arrive - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
again; neither Reagan nor Bush lied about a terror attack on an embassy just because they were running for re-election; the way obama did.

 

[bedowin62]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

All too true. But the modern-day RW of the Republican Party doesn't care about what's true and what isn't true, or about what's right or what's wrong. They only care about regaining power. And any and all tactics that they believe will aid them in that effort, even if it's not demonstrably true, is a perfectly fine avenue of attack in order to pursue their agenda.

YAWN
the silly, loser sanctinmonious Left cant admit the depth of their corruption and the lenghts their corrupt Messiah would go to cover up a terrorist attack in the middle of his re-election campaign

 

[Redfish]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

All too true. But the modern-day RW of the Republican Party doesn't care about what's true and what isn't true, or about what's right or what's wrong. They only care about regaining power. And any and all tactics that they believe will aid them in that effort, even if it's not demonstrably true, is a perfectly fine avenue of attack in order to pursue their agenda.

Nixon was held accountable for his lies, Clinton was held accountable for his, obama should be held accountable for his.

The hypocrisy of you libs is amazing. Your blind adoration of obama is a form of mental illness.

 

[bendog]

There will be more time later to reflect, but today, we have work to do. There is no higher priority than protecting our men and women wherever they serve. We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.

American Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton - Address on the Deaths of Americans in Benghazi (transcript-audio-video)

But yes the WH spun it to deflect from notions of al queda's on the run and our for policy is working.

 

[American Horse]

The congress has a duty to do oversight, particularly when a chief diplomat, an ambassador is murdered at the same time our diplomatic embassy/consulate/facility/station (sovereign US territory) is overrun in a terrorist attack after the ambassador has for weeks requested improved security and the security personnel who were actually there were removed in the month preceding the attack.

All this happening just before an election in which the president has claimed that the same terrorist organization is defeated and on the run all while he needs his reputation as a staunch defender of US security be believed in by the voting public, and he unlike Reagan took no responsibility for it as a result of his failed policy and instead elected to lie and force the arrest of the innocent individual who created the Video which the attack was purported to be the result of and all this to perpetuate his lie.

 

[srlip]

reagan wasn't been succeeded in office by a complete nutjob (altho the bushes ARE wannabe tyrants, obviously

 

[Mustang]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

All too true. But the modern-day RW of the Republican Party doesn't care about what's true and what isn't true, or about what's right or what's wrong. They only care about regaining power. And any and all tactics that they believe will aid them in that effort, even if it's not demonstrably true, is a perfectly fine avenue of attack in order to pursue their agenda.

Nixon was held accountable for his lies, Clinton was held accountable for his, obama should be held accountable for his.

The hypocrisy of you libs is amazing. Your blind adoration of obama is a form of mental illness.

I said MODERN-DAY conservatives. A lot has changed in 40 plus years. In Nixon's day, Republicans supported him until real evidence started piling up. Then they withdrew their support.

Also in those days, and as late as the Clinton era, Congressional Democrats stood up do Presidents who were Democrats and refused to rubber stamp their agenda going so far as to holding hearings that were exercises in the Congressional check and balance of power to which you referred.

That has all changed in recent years as a Republican Congress gave a wink and a nod to abuses during the Bush administration which they did not hold hearings about or bother to investigate.

Likewise, during the Clinton years, Republicans engaged in non stop investigations and used Ken Starr as a 4th branch of gov't that was essentially accountable to no one.

Today, it's only more so. Republicans have taken the 'end-justifies-the-means' attitude toward President Obama because they now are willing to yell fire when there isn't even any smoke.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that Obama lied as a political expediency to avoid making his botched foreign policy a centerpiece of the 2012 campaign