• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

the Voters in the US have a Serious RESPONSIBILITY

Tam

Well-known member
After watch Brett Beier's special on Benghazi tonight it is plain to see the US voters have a very serious Responsibility to the families of those killed in that TERRORIST ATTACK. They have to make sure something like that doesn't happen again. A terrorist attack is one thing but THAT terrorist attack was successful because of the Obama Administration's incompetence. Added Security was requested and denied. Stevens knew something was coming and it was only a matter of time. Security personal told the State Department something was going to happen, and all the warnings were ignored by a Administration that wanted everyone to believe the Killing of Osama would somehow END TERRORISM. IT DIDN'T and Ambassador Stevens and three other US citizens are the proof of it as are all those killed in Green on Blue attacks.

What made it worse was Obama and his talking heads LIED to protect THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS. It is time for the US voters to END THE POLITICAL CAREERS OF THOSE THAT FELT THEIR CAREERS WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS. :mad:
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
It's disgraceful, that's all you can say about it. There is a new book out also that tells that Lyin' Biden, was the only detractor in the room when the decision was made to send in the seals to get Bin Laden. because he was afraid that if the raid went bad, it would negatively affect their re-election bid. That is a what a real piece of shyt looks like. Don't do what's best for the country,cover myself 1st. :mad: :mad:
 

Tam

Well-known member
With what is going on with the LYING ABOUT LIBYA from the Obama Administration, I just love seeing Obama and his talking heads out in front of the Left Bias media calling Romney a liar. :roll: Obama's whole team are nothing but LIARS and anyone not seeing that after all the evidence in the last month is as BLIND as Michelle Obama when she didn't see her hubby point the finger of BLAME. :roll:

This LYING ADMINISTRATION NEEDS TO BE JAILED FOR PURE INCOMPETENCE if for nothing else. :x
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Good to see the concern over honesty in government, and the loss of american lives.

What I find sad is the anger over the lives of 4 Americans, but not the thousands we've lost in these last couple of useless wars.

Which, by the way, were often based on lies.

Most americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11. There was no al qaeda in Iraq (but there is now).

The whole WMD thing was based on an Iraqi engineer lying, which our intelligence service knew.

Then going back, the girl lying about Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. All brought to you by the PR firm hired to rile us all up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Nayirah Testimony refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people, including babies, died when nurses and doctors fled the country.

In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Was just reading more on the origin of the Iraq war, and figured those concerned about honesty would want to read this:

CIA activities in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard Kerr, a 32-year CIA veteran who served three years as deputy director for intelligence, was commissioned to lead a review of agency analysis of Iraqi WMD claims, and produced a series of reports, one of which is unclassified.[29] Kerr told journalist Robert Dreyfuss that CIA analysts felt intimidated by the Bush administration, saying, "A lot of analysts believed that they were being pressured to come to certain conclusions … . I talked to a lot of people who said, 'There was a lot of repetitive questioning. We were being asked to justify what we were saying again and again.' There were certainly people who felt they were being pushed beyond the evidence they had."[30] In a January 26, 2006 interview, Kerr acknowledged this had resulted in open antagonism between some in the CIA and the Bush White House, saying, "There have been more leaks and discussions outside what I would consider to be the appropriate level than I've ever seen before. And I think that lack of discipline is a real problem. I don't think an intelligence organization can kind of take up arms against politics, or a policy-maker. I think that will not work, and it won't stand."[31]

Evidence against Iraq having a WMD program included information from CIA officer Valerie Plame, who, in a July 14, 2003 The Washington Post newspaper column by Robert Novak, was identified publicly as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Plame's husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV had been sent by CIA to the African nation of Niger to investigate claims that Iraq intended to purchase uranium yellowcake from that country, which was incorporated in President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address to support waging a preventive war against Iraq. See Iraq 2007 investigations for the aftermath of this claims and disclosures about them.

Kenneth Pollack, a former National Security Council expert on Iraq, who generally supported the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein,[32] told Seymour Hersh that what the Bush administration did was


"... dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership.... They always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information," Pollack said.[33]

Some of the information used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq came from a discredited informant codenamed "Curveball" by CIA, who falsely claimed that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. Despite warnings to CIA from the German Federal Intelligence Service regarding the authenticity of his claims, they were incorporated into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address and Colin Powell's subsequent presentation to the UN Security Council.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Here's some more interesting stuff I'm reading. Seems that honesty has been quite a problem in our government.

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In asserting a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration focused special attention on alleged ties between Hussein and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who Secretary of State Powell called a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden."[75] Soon after the start of the war, however, evidence of such ties was discredited by multiple U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Department's Inspector General's Office. A CIA report in early October 2004 "found no clear evidence of Iraq harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,"[76] More broadly, the CIA's Kerr Group summarized in 2004 that despite "a 'purposely aggressive approach' in conducting exhaustive and repetitive searches for such links... [the U.S.] Intelligence Community remained firm in its assessment that no operational or collaborative relationship existed."[77] Despite these findings, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has continued to assert that a link existed between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has drawn criticism from members of the intelligence community and leading Democrats.[78] As of the invasion, Bush's own State Department listed 45 countries, including the United States where Al Qaeda was active. Iraq was not one of them.[79]

The eventual lack of evidence linking the Hussein government and Al Qaeda led many war critics to allege that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated such links to strengthen the case for the invasion.[80] These claims were supported by the July 2005 release of the so-called Downing Street Memo, in which Richard Dearlove (then head of British foreign intelligence service MI6) wrote that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power.[62] In addition, in his April 2007 report Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble found that the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans—run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld—purposely manipulated evidence to strengthen the case for war.[6] The Inspector General's report also highlighted the role of members of the Iraqi National Congress, a group headed by Ahmad Chalabi in providing false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion.
 

djinwa

Well-known member
All this lying reminded me of this article by a Lt Colonel outlining the bogus claims of success in Afghanistan that have been made for years. Thousands of lives lost for no reason. This will certainly make each and every one of us call for an immediate withdrawal of our troops, so they can return home to defend our country.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

Credibility Gap

I’m hardly the only one who has noted the discrepancy between official statements and the truth on the ground.

A January 2011 report by the Afghan NGO Security Office noted that public statements made by U.S. and ISAF leaders at the end of 2010 were “sharply divergent from IMF, [international military forces, NGO-speak for ISAF] ‘strategic communication’ messages suggesting improvements. We encourage [nongovernment organization personnel] to recognize that no matter how authoritative the source of any such claim, messages of the nature are solely intended to influence American and European public opinion ahead of the withdrawal, and are not intended to offer an accurate portrayal of the situation for those who live and work here.”

The following month, Anthony Cordesman, on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that ISAF and the U.S. leadership failed to report accurately on the reality of the situation in Afghanistan.

“Since June 2010, the unclassified reporting the U.S. does provide has steadily shrunk in content, effectively ‘spinning’ the road to victory by eliminating content that illustrates the full scale of the challenges ahead,” Cordesman wrote. “They also, however, were driven by political decisions to ignore or understate Taliban and insurgent gains from 2002 to 2009, to ignore the problems caused by weak and corrupt Afghan governance, to understate the risks posed by sanctuaries in Pakistan, and to ‘spin’ the value of tactical ISAF victories while ignoring the steady growth of Taliban influence and control.”

How many more men must die in support of a mission that is not succeeding and behind an array of more than seven years of optimistic statements by U.S. senior leaders in Afghanistan? No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan. But we do expect — and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve — to have our leaders tell us the truth about what’s going on.
---------------------------------
Tell The Truth

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Tam said:
After watch Brett Beier's special on Benghazi tonight it is plain to see the US voters have a very serious Responsibility to the families of those killed in that TERRORIST ATTACK. They have to make sure something like that doesn't happen again. A terrorist attack is one thing but THAT terrorist attack was successful because of the Obama Administration's incompetence. Added Security was requested and denied. Stevens knew something was coming and it was only a matter of time. Security personal told the State Department something was going to happen, and all the warnings were ignored by a Administration that wanted everyone to believe the Killing of Osama would somehow END TERRORISM. IT DIDN'T and Ambassador Stevens and three other US citizens are the proof of it as are all those killed in Green on Blue attacks.

What made it worse was Obama and his talking heads LIED to protect THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS. It is time for the US voters to END THE POLITICAL CAREERS OF THOSE THAT FELT THEIR CAREERS WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEATHS OF FOUR AMERICANS. :mad:
 
Top