It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[Dill]

(02-21-2017, 02:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Obama didn't say no go.  They had to wait for the next moonless night which came after the transition according to what I read.  If the military says it is good to go, the President has no way of ascertaining whether they are or not.  I'm not sure what you expect here, or maybe i'm misunderstanding.  

I didn't know we were talking about only American dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chinook_shootdown_in_Afghanistan

Now can we retroactively impeach?

Waiting for "the next" moonless night means Obama said no go and would have reconsidered circumstances again once the mission was set. And yes, the president would have real time intel assessments for this situation, including from drones and satellites. Since the Bay of Pigs every president till Trump knows you don't just rubber stamp Pentagon oks. And the Pentagon knows it is only supposed to provide assessments and intel, not urge the president one way or the other. The CJCS is one (advisory) voice on the NSC.  

I was in Afghanistan when that Chinook went down. Unless Obama himself shot it down, I don't see the problem or an analogy here. That Chinook was engaged in a tactical level operation in a war zone, ordered out from a FOB in Logar (probably Shank). https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/wardak_executive_summary.pdf  Back then it was war-fighting every day in every province along the Paki border from Nurestan to Helmand. Even the CentCom commander could not monitor all that.

And yes, for most US voters, American bodies are what count. Blowing up a children's hospital in Iraq will just not create the blowback of four Americans killed and dragged through the streets of Fallujah.

The standards are different too, depending upon the party in office. 4,000 dead owing to cooked intel vs 4 dead in Benghazi in response to a random video just will not result in the same number of Congressional investigations.

 

[*michaelsean*]

Waiting for the next moonless night is not a no go, it's a plan.

Are you saying that they knew the mission was compromised and he ignored it? Best I can tell is the team learned enroute, via intercepts, that it may be compromised and chose to continue on.

As for Benghazi, my complaint was that they blatantly lied about it.

[Dill]

(02-22-2017, 12:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Waiting for the next moonless night is not a no go, it's a plan.

Are you saying that they knew the mission was compromised and he ignored it? Best I can tell is the team learned enroute, via intercepts, that it may be compromised and chose to continue on.

As for Benghazi, my complaint was that they blatantly lied about it.

A plan, sure. No go until conditions are right.

Benghazi? who lied about what?

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2017, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: A plan, sure. No go until conditions are right.

Benghazi? who lied about what?

If you have an operation, and you plan a specific day, that doesn't make every day in between a no go.  The implication being that Obama put a no go because there was a problem with the plan.

When we were told it was a protest that went bad over that movie.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2017, 10:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If you have an operation, and you plan a specific day, that doesn't make every day in between a no go.  The implication being that Obama put a no go because there was a problem with the plan.

Either way it rests with the current POTUS who looked at the intel (we hope) and made the decision to go ahead.

PS: I don't blame the POTUS for every attack that goes bad...too many variables...but the buck stops with them.

PPS: Why was he sleeping during his first authorized raid?  If he can tweet at 3am he can be awake for this.  I know I'd have been to hyper too sleep knowing what I just set in motion. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2017, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: Either way it rests with the current POTUS who looked at the intel (we hope) and made the decision to go ahead.

PS: I don't blame the POTUS for every attack that goes bad...too many variables...but the buck stops with them.

PPS: Why was he sleeping during his first authorized raid?  If he can tweet at 3am he can be awake for this.  I know I'd have been to hyper to sleep knowing what I just set in motion. 

And my question is, was there intel available that the raid had been compromised and he went ahead anyway?  I'm not finding that anywhere.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2017, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And my question is, was there intel available that the raid had been compromised and he went ahead anyway?  I'm not finding that anywhere.

Probably won't either.  I'd bet there's a lot of CYA that keeps that info away.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2017, 10:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If you have an operation, and you plan a specific day, that doesn't make every day in between a no go.  The implication being that Obama put a no go because there was a problem with the plan.

When we were told it was a protest that went bad over that movie.

Four people died during the Benghazi attacks. Two of them were CIA contractors protecting a CIA compound in a politically unstable country overseas. 

1) What do you think that means?

2) What does the CIA do overseas in politically unstable countries who aren't considered particularly friendly?

3) Given your answers to questions 1 and 2, do you really expect our government to admit the CIA was there to foment a civil war and install a Pro-American government ala the Shah of Iran?

There was stuff I did in the military I wasn't allowed to tell my own family which was a helluva lot less classified than what the CIA is up to on any given day. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2017, 12:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Four people died during the Benghazi attacks. Two of them were CIA contractors protecting a CIA compound in a politically unstable country overseas. 

1) What do you think that means?

2) What does the CIA do overseas in politically unstable countries who aren't considered particularly friendly?

3) Given your answers to questions 1 and 2, do you really expect our government to admit the CIA was there to foment a civil war and install a Pro-American government ala the Shah of Iran?

There was stuff I did in the military I wasn't allowed to tell my own family which was a helluva lot less classified than what the CIA is up to on any given day. 

No don't tell me it was a protest that was based on a movie and it got violent.  It was a planned attack.  

And you should tell the libs all that because they're still buying the movie bit, and certainly don't believe your theory.

[*bfine32*]

(02-22-2017, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Benghazi? who lied about what?

For real?

Hillary stating that she had lost more sleep than all of Committee combined (Sounds kind of Trumpish doesn't it) over the loss of her "good friend" Chris Stevens; even though she called him Chris Smith in initial correspondence.

While initially maintaining is was due to a video she told the PM of Egypt (and her family) an entire different story

Her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal


Said Chris Stevens "felt comfortable" although he continually asked for more security. Of course she blamed the lack of security


She was "transparent" in her email traffic


Her explanation of the deaths to the families of the deceased. Well this is according to them. Of course when challenged with somebody's lying she said it wasn't her, so it must have been the families of the victims amitight?


There's much, much more, but this thread is about Trump




I am probably more understanding of Clinton's action than most conservatives, but to question if anyone lied about what happened is either extreme nativity or willful ignorance. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2017, 12:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No don't tell me it was a protest that was based on a movie and it got violent.  It was a planned attack.  

And you should tell the libs all that because they're still buying the movie bit, and certainly don't believe your theory.

Okay, it was a planned attack. The first follow up question: what and why did they attack? Um, they attacked a CIA compound we were running guns and other weapons through to further destabilize an anti-American government to effect regime change. 

You brought up the video this time. If you don't buy it why did you bring it up?

The whole thing is a dog and pony show on both the Democrats and Republicans part. The Democrats lied about the cover story and there are two more stars on the CIA memorial. The Republicans trumped the situation up (pun intended) to politically wound Hillary. 

More soldiers died in Somalia as a direct result of decisions made by the Secretary of Defense which didn't lead to this level of repeated investigations. The kill/capture missions for Adid were conducted under the cover of humanitarian aid missions in Somalia. 

[Dill]

(02-22-2017, 12:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No don't tell me it was a protest that was based on a movie and it got violent.  It was a planned attack.  

And you should tell the libs all that because they're still buying the movie bit, and certainly don't believe your theory.

Two quick points, Mike:

1. There is no "either/or" requirement here. Attacks can be both planned and/or develop from protests.

2. I am one of those who still buy the "movie bit" since there is no evidence against it and all evidence is in favor of it, including the testimony of one of the attackers.

"What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," Times reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote in a story on Khattala on Tuesday. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

3. A final point--whether the attack was planned or not or about the video is only an issue because far-right Republicans were trying to hype a "planned" attack as evidence that Obama's anti terror policy wasn't working, as if the "real" reason for the attack had to be covered--like anyone would care about this distinction except Anti-Obamists.

Why anyone would even go there after Bush sent 4,500 Americans to their deaths in trumped up war is astonishing--until one realizes that the job of the RW noise machine is to do just that---manufacture scandals and keep them running for years. When 7 congressional investigations turn up nothing, that is just more "proof" of how the Clintons get away with everything, get a "free pass" from the press, and are subject to a double standard. 

[Dill]

(02-22-2017, 12:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For real?
Hillary stating that she had lost more sleep than all of Committee combined (Sounds kind of Trumpish doesn't it) over the loss of her "good friend" Chris Stevens; even though she called him Chris Smith in initial correspondence.
While initially maintaining is was due to a video she told the PM of Egypt (and her family) an entire different story
Her relationship with Sidney Blumenthal
Said Chris Stevens "felt comfortable" although he continually asked for more security. Of course she blamed the lack of security
She was "transparent" in her email traffic
Her explanation of the deaths to the families of the deceased. Well this is according to them. Of course when challenged with somebody's lying she said it wasn't her, so it must have been the families of the victims amitight?
There's much, much more, but this thread is about Trump
I am probably more understanding of Clinton's action than most conservatives, but to question if anyone lied about what happened is either extreme nativity or willful ignorance. 

The initial Republican claim was that Democrats were lying to cover up a terror attack. 7 Congressional committees were unable to establish that.  The "lies" you are referring to are just spun out of later hearings.

In the span of 48 hours, Obama and Clinton get different reports. It is a week before they get the actual video of the attack. In the meantime, they say one thing to a foreign diplomat, another to people in-house, perhaps another to families.  None of the "lies" attributed to Clinton are inconsistent with this situation.  You don't necessarily tell a foreign diplomat the same thing you tell a family member, and what you say to anyone may be subject to incoming information.

The Republican method of parsing out "lies" was to compare something said to an Egyptian Diplomat on one day something said to the press on another.  

The Benghazi investigations were, in the history of the US, the finest example of the "gotcha" ethic you were complaining about early. As Rep. McCArthy revealed, the purpose of the faux scandal was to bring down Hillary's numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html?utm_term=.395f1a51a1fc  Like whitewatergate, it was a fishing expedition.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-23-2017, 06:14 PM)Dill Wrote:  Two  quick points, Mike:

1. There is no "either/or" requirement here. Attacks can be both planned and/or develop from protests.

2. I am one of those who still buy the "movie bit" since there is no evidence against it and all evidence is in favor of it, including the testimony of one of the attackers.

"What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video," Times reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote in a story on Khattala on Tuesday. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

 3. A final point--whether the attack was planned or not or about the video is only an issue because far-right Republicans were trying to hype a "planned" attack as evidence that Obama's anti terror policy wasn't working, as if the "real" reason for the attack had to be covered--like anyone would care about this distinction except Anti-Obamists.

Why anyone would even go there after Bush sent 4,500 Americans to their deaths in trumped up war is astonishing--until one realizes that the job of the RW noise machine is to do just that---manufacture scandals and keep them running for years. When 7 congressional investigations turn up nothing, that is just more "proof" of how the Clintons get away with everything, get a "free pass" from the press, and are subject to a double standard. 

OK I can't argue with someone who can't count.

[*bfine32*]

(02-23-2017, 06:25 PM)Dill Wrote: The initial Republican claim was that Democrats were lying to cover up a terror attack. 7 Congressional committees were unable to establish that.  The "lies" you are referring to are just spun out of later hearings.

In the span of 48 hours, Obama and Clinton get different reports. It is a week before they get the actual video of the attack. In the meantime, they say one thing to a foreign diplomat, another to people in-house, perhaps another to families.  None of the "lies" attributed to Clinton are inconsistent with this situation.  You don't necessarily tell a foreign diplomat the same thing you tell a family member, and what you say to anyone may be subject to incoming information.

The Republican method of parsing out "lies" was to compare something said to an Egyptian Diplomat on one day something said to the press on another.  

The Benghazi investigations were, in the history of the US, the finest example of the "gotcha" ethic you were complaining about early. As Rep. McCArthy revealed, the purpose of the faux scandal was to bring down Hillary's numbers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kevin-mccarthys-truthful-gaffe/2015/09/30/f12a9fac-67a8-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html?utm_term=.395f1a51a1fc  Like whitewatergate, it was a fishing expedition.

As I said: I understand Hill's and others actions and of course it was a gotcha. I'm just of the opinion supported by proof that folks lied. Apparently you think no one did or putting them in quotes make them not lies. She told different folks, different things at the same time. She "lied" to somebody.

[Dill]

(02-23-2017, 06:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: OK I can't argue with someone who can't count.

The final point wasn't a quick one.

Sounds like all three points are going to stand.

[Dill]

(02-23-2017, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said: I understand Hill's and others actions and of course it was a gotcha. I'm just of the opinion supported by proof that folks lied. Apparently you think no one did or putting them in quotes make them not lies. She told different folks, different things at the same time. She "lied" to somebody.

It's the first quarter of a Bengals-Steelers game and you are locked in the men's room. 

I'm listening to the game on my car radio, so you call to ask what the score is and I tell you "Bengals 7-0."

3rd quarter you are still locked in and call me again. "Bengals 17-7 and the Ben is throwing interceptions" I tell you.

But Dino tells you I said it was Benals 10-0 at halftime.  And a 3rd party reports that at the beginning of the 4th quarter I told my wife, a Bengals fan, that the  Bengals were playing well.

Then you find out the Steelers won 28-17 on three 4th quarter touchdowns. Bengals fans in the forum claim the refs gave it to the Steelers and I am talking about how well Ben played in the 4th quarter.

How do you reconcile all these "different" accounts? You demand to know why I said nothing about the bad calls, which in any case I could not actually see.  Why was I saying 'lousy play' in the first half and 'amazing comeback' in the second? Why was I telling different folks different things at the same time?

This is the kind of proof you have that Hillary lied. It is just more difficult to see when Hannity and Rush do not say "She told Chelsea one thing on TUESDAY and, after an update, the Egyptian prime minister something else on WEDNESDAY. And they don't point out what was told a prime minister in a diplomatic communique might be, well, "diplomatic." Some family members of the deceased say Hillary mentioned the video. Whipped up by Fox News, One even says Obama "murdered" his son. Yet Some family members insist Hillary didn't mention the video. They are disgusted by the Fox politicization of family tragedy.

If Fox et al. create enough smoke so that people have proof for what they want to believe, mission accomplished. But there is no Benghazi scandal--only a standard applied to Hillary and Obama which was never applied to any preceding president except Bill Clinton.

[*bfine32*]

(02-24-2017, 12:31 AM)Dill Wrote: It's the first quarter of a Bengals-Steelers game and you are locked in the men's room. 

I'm listening to the game on my car radio, so you call to ask what the score is and I tell you "Bengals 7-0."

3rd quarter you are still locked in and call me again. "Bengals 17-7 and the Ben is throwing interceptions" I tell you.

But Dino tells you I said it was Benals 10-0 at halftime.  And a 3rd party reports that at the beginning of the 4th quarter I told my wife, a Bengals fan, that the  Bengals were playing well.

Then you find out the Steelers won 28-17 on three 4th quarter touchdowns. Bengals fans in the forum claim the refs gave it to the Steelers and I am talking about how well Ben played in the 4th quarter.

How do you reconcile all these "different" accounts? You demand to know why I said nothing about the bad calls, which in any case I could not actually see.  Why was I saying 'lousy play' in the first half and 'amazing comeback' in the second? Why was I telling different folks different things at the same time?

This is the kind of proof you have that Hillary lied. It is just more difficult to see when Hannity and Rush do not say "She told Chelsea one thing on TUESDAY and, after an update, the Egyptian prime minister something else on WEDNESDAY. And they don't point out what was told a prime minister in a diplomatic communique might be, well, "diplomatic." Some family members of the deceased say Hillary mentioned the video. Whipped up by Fox News, One even says Obama "murdered" his son. Yet Some family members insist Hillary didn't mention the video. They are disgusted by the Fox politicization of family tragedy.

If Fox et al. create enough smoke so that people have proof for what they want to believe, mission accomplished. But there is no Benghazi scandal--only a standard applied to Hillary and Obama which was never applied to any preceding president except Bill Clinton.

Got it. You roll with Hillary didn't lie and I'll roll with she did. I have zero idea what Hannity and Rush have to do with it. I have learned that a lot more left leaners pay attention to what they say more so than I; as I cannot tell you the last time I've listened to either. 

I take the last part back. I will say I was in a rental car back during the GOP primaries that didn't have Sirius and found myself listening to a talk radio station (840 Louisville?) and Rush came on, He seemed to hate Trump more than the usual suspects around here. 

[Dill]

(02-22-2017, 10:50 AM)michaelsean Wrote: If you have an operation, and you plan a specific day, that doesn't make every day in between a no go.  The implication being that Obama put a no go because there was a problem with the plan.

When we were told it was a protest that went bad over that movie.

Whoa! Obama didn't plan a "specific day." That is not possible in the case of a raid on people who may be traveling frequently in the region.  At least 48 hours of fresh intel prior to any go day would be required.

In fact, this was not even a specific, date-ready raid. It was a general project discussed and then passed on to the Trump administration to be given the usual due consideration following intel protocols and NSC deliberation. No go means Obama thought the risks--especially to our relation to the Yemeni government--could not be assessed properly in a few weeks. (Obama's in-house rule for spec ops was Measure twice and cut once.) So it was up to the Trump NSC team to decide whether raids of this type should occur at all--after due deliberation.

Did Trump gave the ok over dinner and tweet during the raid, as former NSC member Colin Kahl claims?--apparently he was not in the situation room following events in real time.  Trump dined, people died?

[Dill]

(02-24-2017, 12:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Got it. You roll with Hillary didn't lie and I'll roll with she did. I have zero idea what Hannity and Rush have to do with it. I have learned that a lot more left leaners pay attention to what they say more so than I; as I cannot tell you the last time I've listened to either. 

I take the last part back. I will say I was in a rental car back during the GOP primaries that didn't have Sirius and found myself listening to a talk radio station (840 Louisville?) and Rush came on, He seemed to hate Trump more than the usual suspects around here. 

Lol, you didn't hear Trump's biggest booster hating on him.

Rush and Hannity were the primary engineers of the Hillary Lied faux scandal. They are the ones who ginned up your "proof."

You roll with "hillary didn't lie" and you are rolling with them.