Benghazi

[Deranged Rhino]

You would be right, if you weren't so incredibly wrong.

 

Funny me, but landing on the carrier in a flight suit, a huge press conference with a banner perfectly positioned while 43 was speaking, with the stated aim of announcing the end of major military action WAS meant to announce that the military operations as outlined in the mission have been accomplished. I don't know why you are debating that. Never mind that the subsequent casualties were the result of the inability to properly transfer of power and contain the insurgency. But the stated mission of removing Saddam from power and concluding the forward military operations was most certainly accomplished.

 

Also, are you truly comparing political motivations in May of '03 to those in Sept of '12?

No, it's not. The statements made at the time were extremely clear: the war aims were satisfied, so the "war" was over and the "occupation" was beginning. There was a clear delineation made between the two. The United States has ALWAYS made a clear delineation between warfare and occupation. And that is entirely consistent with contemporary and past strategic doctrine, planning, and philosophy of an organization solidly rooted in a history of nation-state conflicts, and not colonial conflicts. In short, the US military read then Clausewitz, but not their Mao.

 

The spin is the puerile attempts to say "But THIS time it was different!" in a pitiful attempt to assess blame on Bush. Such blame as should be assessed is systemic and doctrinal - as many of us here pointed out even before the invasion began.

Amazing that two obviously smart men can be so blinded by partisanship.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Amazing that two obviously smart men can be so blinded by partisanship.

Two Bushbots

[GG]

Amazing that two obviously smart men can be so blinded by partisanship.

 

Seriously?

 

You have been offered several explanations for the rationale of the banner, which perfectly fits the narrative of the end of combat operations as defined by the DoD, and moving to the next stage of operations, which are technically not military because you had a major change in command. Even you admit it was never adopted as a political platform by Bush & GOP, and was coopted by Dems as a sign of failure. No one on the right ever uttered that the entire operation was over when the formal military operation ended, only the chain of command had changed, and the military folks who were in charge of their part of the operation celebrated the end of their involvement.

 

OTOH, you had glaring billboards leading up to the 2012 election trumpeting that Al Qeda along with Bin Laden were dead.

 

Yet, you call us blind.

Edited May 8, 2014 by GG

[IDBillzFan]

Amazing that two obviously smart men can be so blinded by partisanship.

 

Gotta hand it to you. While the lies told about what happened in Benghazi are about to cement Obama as one of the most incompetent leaders we'll ever see, you've managed to get two of the smarter posters here to talk about a Bush event from 11 years ago, wrapping it so nicely in a predictable "you're blinded by partisanship" irony.

 

Pure genius.

[DC Tom]

Amazing that two obviously smart men can be so blinded by partisanship.

 

Let's remember: I was against the war, against how it was portrayed to the American people.

 

It's not partisanship, it's understanding.

[Deranged Rhino]

Seriously?

 

You have been offered several explanations for the rationale of the banner, which perfectly fits the narrative of the end of combat operations as defined by the DoD, and moving to the next stage of operations, which are technically not military because you had a major change in command. Even you admit it was never adopted as a political platform by Bush & GOP, and was coopted by Dems as a sign of failure. No one on the right ever uttered that the entire operation was over when the formal military operation ended, only the chain of command had changed, and the military folks who were in charge of their part of the operation celebrated the end of their involvement.

 

OTOH, you had glaring billboards leading up to the 2012 election trumpeting that Al Qeda along with Bin Laden were dead.

 

Yet, you call us blind.

The GOP didn't have to "say" anything, the imagery they chose to employ that day said more than their words ever could. You don't have the president land a jet, then give a speech on the deck of a returning aircraft carrier, in front of a sign saying "mission accomplished" while celebrating victory in a war of choice (while ignoring the fact that none of the stated objectives for said war were accomplished at that point) unless you're trying to make a larger, political point.

 

You can pivot to Obama and the '12 election if you want, but you cannot deny that the entire Mission Accomplished fiasco was all for the cameras and to build political capital for the upcoming election.

 

Or are you denying that?

 

What was the point of the press conference, and the spectacle, if not to assure the American voting public that everything worked out just fine?

 

Let's remember: I was against the war, against how it was portrayed to the American people.

 

It's not partisanship, it's understanding.

 

I do remember that well. I was for the war at the start, 100%, and we had plenty of lengthy back and forth on the issue. I was also proven 100% wrong over the ensuing decade.

 

I remember our many conversations about this during the lead up to the war and the aftermath. Which is why I'm so surprised by your denial of the political machinations at play during that speech.

 

I don't think you're a Bushbot -- just so blinded by your (justified) disgust with Obama's leadership that you're unwilling to be objective about this.

 

Gotta hand it to you. While the lies told about what happened in Benghazi are about to cement Obama as one of the most incompetent leaders we'll ever see, you've managed to get two of the smarter posters here to talk about a Bush event from 11 years ago, wrapping it so nicely in a predictable "you're blinded by partisanship" irony.

 

Pure genius.

[GG]

The GOP didn't have to "say" anything, the imagery they chose to employ that day said more than their words ever could. You don't have the president land a jet, then give a speech on the deck of a returning aircraft carrier, in front of a sign saying "mission accomplished" while celebrating victory in a war of choice (while ignoring the fact that none of the stated objectives for said war were accomplished at that point) unless you're trying to make a larger, political point.

 

You can pivot to Obama and the '12 election if you want, but you cannot deny that the entire Mission Accomplished fiasco was all for the cameras and to build political capital for the upcoming election.

 

Or are you denying that?

 

What was the point of the press conference, and the spectacle, if not to assure the American voting public that everything worked out just fine?

 

 

 

I do remember that well. I was for the war at the start, 100%, and we had plenty of lengthy back and forth on the issue. I was also proven 100% wrong over the ensuing decade.

 

I remember our many conversations about this during the lead up to the war and the aftermath. Which is why I'm so surprised by your denial of the political machinations at play during that speech.

 

I don't think you're a Bushbot -- just so blinded by your (justified) disgust with Obama's leadership that you're unwilling to be objective about this.

 

 

 

It wasn't a press conference, but a speech. Amazing how things get a life of their own.

 

Interestingly, Bush later admitted that the event was a mistake, which is something you would expect from a real executive.

[Deranged Rhino]

It wasn't a press conference, but a speech. Amazing how things get a life of their own.

 

Interestingly, Bush later admitted that the event was a mistake, which is something you would expect from a real executive.

I respected it when Bush said it then, and would respect you way more if you would do the same.

(Not that I don't respect you, I actually do and enjoy your posts)

[GG]

I respected it when Bush said it then, and would respect you way more if you would do the same.

(Not that I don't respect you, I actually do and enjoy your posts)

Yes, I also agree that in retrospect the event at the carrier was a mistake.

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes, I also agree that in retrospect the event at the carrier was a mistake.

Cheers.

[Security]

This thread could use a little humor and fun!

 

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/05/08/wonder-bread-republicans-campaign-donations/

 

The most GOP leaning company makes the classic White Bread! Love it!

[3rdnlng]

I respected it when Bush said it then, and would respect you way more if you would do the same.

(Not that I don't respect you, I actually do and enjoy your posts)

 

Would you respect Obama if he came out and said his cover up on Benghazi was a mistake?

[DC Tom]

The GOP didn't have to "say" anything, the imagery they chose to employ that day said more than their words ever could. You don't have the president land a jet, then give a speech on the deck of a returning aircraft carrier, in front of a sign saying "mission accomplished" while celebrating victory in a war of choice (while ignoring the fact that none of the stated objectives for said war were accomplished at that point) unless you're trying to make a larger, political point.

 

You can pivot to Obama and the '12 election if you want, but you cannot deny that the entire Mission Accomplished fiasco was all for the cameras and to build political capital for the upcoming election.

 

Or are you denying that?

 

What was the point of the press conference, and the spectacle, if not to assure the American voting public that everything worked out just fine?

 

 

 

I do remember that well. I was for the war at the start, 100%, and we had plenty of lengthy back and forth on the issue. I was also proven 100% wrong over the ensuing decade.

 

I remember our many conversations about this during the lead up to the war and the aftermath. Which is why I'm so surprised by your denial of the political machinations at play during that speech.

 

I don't think you're a Bushbot -- just so blinded by your (justified) disgust with Obama's leadership that you're unwilling to be objective about this.

 

 

 

I have the Army's official history of OIF in front of me right now. It describes the planning, preparation, and execution of the war. It specifically describes, in many places, the end of the invasion as the end of hostilities. (It specifically refers to the occupation as "post-hostilities.") In that context, yes, what Bush said was entirely accurate (in fact, elements of his speech were all but cribbed from the CENTCOM planning documents.)

 

That the CONTEXT may have been wrong is another discussion, that's already been beaten to death. But it's not political machination to make a Clausewitzian speech in a non-Clausewitzian context. Just ignorant.

 

My source isn't Obama Derangement Syndrome. It's the frickin' US military.

[Deranged Rhino]

Would you respect Obama if he came out and said his cover up on Benghazi was a mistake?

 

Certainly.

 

I have the Army's official history of OIF in front of me right now. It describes the planning, preparation, and execution of the war. It specifically describes, in many places, the end of the invasion as the end of hostilities. (It specifically refers to the occupation as "post-hostilities.") In that context, yes, what Bush said was entirely accurate (in fact, elements of his speech were all but cribbed from the CENTCOM planning documents.)

 

That the CONTEXT may have been wrong is another discussion, that's already been beaten to death. But it's not political machination to make a Clausewitzian speech in a non-Clausewitzian context. Just ignorant.

 

My source isn't Obama Derangement Syndrome. It's the frickin' US military.

 

Context is all that matters, I said in my second post on this that while you're technically accurate you're ignoring the bigger picture. The Average-Joe-Voter watching that speech, and the pomp and circumstance that surrounded it, is not thinking about Clausewitz or military definitions -- they're seeing the President of The United States do a literal victory lap... in a jet and flight suit straight from Top Gun. After months of build up to the invasion, wherein the allies convinced the world of not only the necessity of war but of its swift and decisive conclusion, the speech was designed to be the exclamation point. The "I told you so" moment, for lack of a more sophisticated term, which 43 hoped would be burned into the electorate's minds when they went to the polls in the coming months.

 

That was the message the administration was sending, and they were sending it for entirely political reasons.

 

Denying that is silly. And you're not a silly man. Though, most times, you can be quite hilarious.

[Chef Jim]

Certainly.

 

 

Unfortunately because this country is led by the blame machine we'll never found out if you're serious.

[3rdnlng]

Certainly.

 

 

 

Context is all that matters, I said in my second post on this that while you're technically accurate you're ignoring the bigger picture. The Average-Joe-Voter watching that speech, and the pomp and circumstance that surrounded it, is not thinking about Clausewitz or military definitions -- they're seeing the President of The United States do a literal victory lap... in a jet and flight suit straight from Top Gun. After months of build up to the invasion, wherein the allies convinced the world of not only the necessity of war but of its swift and decisive conclusion, the speech was designed to be the exclamation point. The "I told you so" moment, for lack of a more sophisticated term, which 43 hoped would be burned into the electorate's minds when they went to the polls in the coming months.

 

That was the message the administration was sending, and they were sending it for entirely political reasons.

 

Denying that is silly. And you're not a silly man. Though, most times, you can be quite hilarious.

On the one hand we had a president make a speech with a rather dramatic backdrop and you are comparing that to a president who knowingly and deliberately lied to the American public for three weeks, in order to prevent a defeat in the polls.

[DC Tom]

Certainly.

 

 

 

Context is all that matters, I said in my second post on this that while you're technically accurate you're ignoring the bigger picture. The Average-Joe-Voter watching that speech, and the pomp and circumstance that surrounded it, is not thinking about Clausewitz or military definitions -- they're seeing the President of The United States do a literal victory lap... in a jet and flight suit straight from Top Gun. After months of build up to the invasion, wherein the allies convinced the world of not only the necessity of war but of its swift and decisive conclusion, the speech was designed to be the exclamation point. The "I told you so" moment, for lack of a more sophisticated term, which 43 hoped would be burned into the electorate's minds when they went to the polls in the coming months.

 

That was the message the administration was sending, and they were sending it for entirely political reasons.

 

Denying that is silly. And you're not a silly man. Though, most times, you can be quite hilarious.

 

You're simply incorrect. The message that was given at that point in time was entirely consistent (shockingly so) with the message that had been delivered for MONTHS previous.

 

Unless you're claiming that the Bush Administration, with malice aforethought, knew they were going to intentionally mislead the public for political gain months before they actually did, and in doing so established a political context that was entirely consistent with current and historical policies, you can't possibly be correct.

[Koko78]

On the one hand we had a president make a speech with a rather dramatic backdrop and you are comparing that to a president who knowingly and deliberately lied to the American public for three weeks, in order to prevent a defeat in the polls.

 

I don't see how Obama "knowingly and deliberately lied"; he simply did not watch reports about what actually happened in Benghazi on CNN. The man was too busy fundraising to investigate the facts. You can't seriously expect him to lead the nation when he's busy glad-handing in Vegas!

[boyst]

This thread is a perfect example of political bait and switch.

 

Now we just need to have the media...wait, the Clippers owner...honey boo boo what????

 

We are one stupid !@#$ing country

[OCinBuffalo]

Would you respect Obama if he came out and said his cover up on Benghazi was a mistake?

Right after we have real posters, acting like "stand up guys"....

 

You post this? An improbable hypothetical? Mr. Weak having the strength to come out and admit he was wrong?

 

Now, are you trolling? Or, what the hell?

 

How is he supposed to answer that question honestly...which...seems to be what's sorta happening the last few posts...when there's practically no chance of it happening?

 

I mean he could say "Of course", or perhaps:

Certainly.

But, he's never gonna have to answer that bell.

 

I could say that if aliens invaded I wouldn't be scared. And, when they never invade...I never had to answer that bell either. Do I get the credit for never having been scared of aliens invading?