Ronald Reagan's Benghazi

what was this thread about? oh yes some libtard hack trying to make a case about Reagan and Benghazi. FAIL. Why? it was Clinton that ordered a lowering of security for the Embassy and Obama did not intervene, probably tacitly approved of it. if fits his agenda.

this dog won't hunt. Reagan at no time ever prior to the barracks bombing ordered a lowering of security. Neither did his Secretary of State. the middle east command bears the blame for any lowering in security posture, not the Reagan administration.

contrast that with Clinton's deliberate actions, all known and documented, ordering a lessor security posture during a known volatile situation, her refusal to allow a General to act to defend the Embassy with a strike force that could have been there in a few hours. as i recall that General nearly disobeyed that order and probably regrets it to this day even if it would have certainly ended his career.

once again Woomby searches the interwebs desperately trying to find every libtard hack job article in a vain attempt to pump up pantsuit Hillary and once again fails. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You're a fucking idiot. You cannot read. Nowhere in the article I cited did it ever blame Reagan for anything. It's an article about how different the political climate is now versus then. You're too stupid to realize that and ironically, it's the very change in political climate that it references that influences your fucking disdain.

There was never any stand down order. That has been proven demonstrably false. There was nothing to be done. You've seen too many movies.

Here's Fox News, your very favorite, telling you there was no stand down order, you fucking lying piece of WaKKKo shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21...op-controlled/

You're a fucking idiot. You cannot read. Nowhere in the article I cited did it ever blame Reagan for anything. It's an article about how different the political climate is now versus then. You're too stupid to realize that and ironically, it's the very change in political climate that it references that influences your fucking disdain.

There was never any stand down order. That has been proven demonstrably false. There was nothing to be done. You've seen too many movies.

Here's Fox News, your very favorite, telling you there was no stand down order, you fucking lying piece of WaKKKo shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21...op-controlled/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

then you posted it for what reason? idiot.

you titled it "Ronald Reagan's Benghazi" i didn't. fool.

You're a fucking idiot. You cannot read. Nowhere in the article I cited did it ever blame Reagan for anything. It's an article about how different the political climate is now versus then. You're too stupid to realize that and ironically, it's the very change in political climate that it references that influences your fucking disdain.

There was never any stand down order. That has been proven demonstrably false. There was nothing to be done. You've seen too many movies.

Here's Fox News, your very favorite, telling you there was no stand down order, you fucking lying piece of WaKKKo shit.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21...op-controlled/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

Except, you're comparing apples and oranges. 2012 was criminal neglect and a failure to take actions when the resources were available to change the outcome. This was also after 11 years on a war like footing so it should have been no surprise to anyone.

1983 was a suprise, there was not reduction of security, and no one was criminally culpable.

Reagan did not outsource the security of our marines like Hillary outsourced the security for the ambassador.

Reagan accepted full responsibility and was open to the families of the fallen. Hillary blamed the attack on a video and still refuses to answer all the questions that the families have.

Apples and Oranges

Except, you're comparing apples and oranges. 2012 was criminal neglect and a failure to take actions when the resources were available to change the outcome. This was also after 11 years on a war like footing so it should have been no surprise to anyone.

1983 was a suprise, there was not reduction of security, and no one was criminally culpable.

Reagan did not outsource the security of our marines like Hillary outsourced the security for the ambassador.

Reagan accepted full responsibility and was open to the families of the fallen. Hillary blamed the attack on a video and still refuses to answer all the questions that the families have.

Apples and Oranges Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go sit in the corner with the other ones judy. Was no comparison between RR, and C, it was about the congress then and now. Don't you fuckers ever read or is it you can't comprehend?

Except, you're comparing apples and oranges. 2012 was criminal neglect and a failure to take actions when the resources were available to change the outcome. This was also after 11 years on a war like footing so it should have been no surprise to anyone.

1983 was a suprise, there was not reduction of security, and no one was criminally culpable.

Reagan did not outsource the security of our marines like Hillary outsourced the security for the ambassador.

Reagan accepted full responsibility and was open to the families of the fallen. Hillary blamed the attack on a video and still refuses to answer all the questions that the families have.

Apples and Oranges Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are not much into revisionist history are you JD?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmid...t/me081022.htm
In 2002, the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs interviewed Caspar Weinberger about the six years (1981-1987) he spent as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense. Stephen Knott, the interviewer, asked him about the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983, which killed 241 Marines. Here’s his answer:

Weinberger: Well, that’s one of my saddest memories.
I was not persuasive enough to persuade the President that the Marines were there on an impossible mission. They were very lightly armed. They were not permitted to take the high ground in front of them or the flanks on either side. They had no mission except to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull’s eye. Theoretically, their presence was supposed to support the idea of disengagement and ultimate peace. I said, “They’re in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and they’re terribly vulnerable.” It didn’t take any gift of prophecy or anything to see how vulnerable they were.

When that horrible tragedy came, why, as I say, I took it very personally and still feel responsible in not having been persuasive enough to overcome the arguments that “Marines don’t cut and run,” and “We can’t leave because we’re there,” and all of that. I begged the President at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position. That ultimately, of course, was done after the tragedy.

then you posted it for what reason? idiot.

you titled it "Ronald Reagan's Benghazi" i didn't. fool. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That was the title of the article, you fucking maroon. The point is that Benghazi shouldn't have devolved into 'Benghazi'. Do you need everything spelled out? I posted it because it's an interesting article about how different the political climate is now versus the 80s. Jesus Christ, are you that fucking thick?

Except, you're comparing apples and oranges. 2012 was criminal neglect and a failure to take actions when the resources were available to change the outcome. This was also after 11 years on a war like footing so it should have been no surprise to anyone.

1983 was a suprise, there was not reduction of security, and no one was criminally culpable.

Reagan did not outsource the security of our marines like Hillary outsourced the security for the ambassador.

Reagan accepted full responsibility and was open to the families of the fallen. Hillary blamed the attack on a video and still refuses to answer all the questions that the families have.

Apples and Oranges Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go sit in the corner with the other ones judy. Was no comparison between RR, and C, it was about the congress then and now. Don't you fuckers ever read or is it you can't comprehend? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are not much into revisionist history are you JD?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmid...t/me081022.htm
In 2002, the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs interviewed Caspar Weinberger about the six years (1981-1987) he spent as Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense. Stephen Knott, the interviewer, asked him about the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983, which killed 241 Marines. Here’s his answer:

Weinberger: Well, that’s one of my saddest memories.
I was not persuasive enough to persuade the President that the Marines were there on an impossible mission. They were very lightly armed. They were not permitted to take the high ground in front of them or the flanks on either side. They had no mission except to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull’s eye. Theoretically, their presence was supposed to support the idea of disengagement and ultimate peace. I said, “They’re in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and they’re terribly vulnerable.” It didn’t take any gift of prophecy or anything to see how vulnerable they were.

When that horrible tragedy came, why, as I say, I took it very personally and still feel responsible in not having been persuasive enough to overcome the arguments that “Marines don’t cut and run,” and “We can’t leave because we’re there,” and all of that. I begged the President at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position. That ultimately, of course, was done after the tragedy.
Originally Posted by WTF

He lacks any true comprehension or understand. His critical thinking skills are retarded by his partisan rancor.

He lacks any true comprehension or understand. His critical thinking skills are retarded by his partisan rancor. Originally Posted by WombRaider

And YOU were just born retarded, woomby the EUNUCH !