The Benghazi Incident

[tw]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Oh and if they were so concerned about security, maybe they should have approved the requests for additional funding for extra security before all this happened.

In cheapshots and soundbyte accusations, they forget to include numbers. Since every consulate at risk requires a company of soldiers, then America does not have enough military. Oh. No wonder they want to spend so much more on military. Realities such as costs have no relevance. After all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Would it be smarter to not invade nations that were a threat to no one? Unfortunately, when we did that, then extremists (or insurgents) were inspired to attack us. Apparently we want to inspire extremists by maintaining many wars simultaneously every year of every decade. Then assign a company of soldiers to every US consulate. Of course, that means a military draft so that we have enough soldiers to povide protection.

[Stormieweather]

TW: There are a great deal of people/companies that make a ton of money off of our military and our wars. It is in their interests that we be constantly fighting somewhere.

In 2012, the association representing makers of predator drones, AUVS, listed “Global Conflict – particularly U.S. and allied nation involvement in future conflicts” as one of the major drivers of “market growth.” In the boardroom, they’re calculating how much war they’ll need in order to make a profit next year.

War

The [defense] sector has leaned Republican in the past, but ultimately its contributions tend to go to whoever is in power.After the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, the sector began to give over 65 percent of its contributions to the GOP. However, midway through the 2010 cycle, Democrats received 57 percent.

During the last two decades, the sector has contributed a total of $150.8 million, with 57 percent going to Republican candidates.

The sector also has a formidable federal lobbying presence, having spent $136.5 million in 2009 -- down from a high of $150.8 million the previous year. In 2009, more than 1,100 lobbyists represented nearly 400 clients. The amount spent on defense lobbying and the number of lobbyists has steadily increased during the last two decades.

The sector’s biggest companies include Center for Responsive Politics “Heavy Hitters” Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics, as well as Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

The main issue for the defense sector is securing government defense contracts and earmarks – they are often quite lucrative -- and influencing the defense budget. Sector favorites include House and Senate members who sit on the armed forces and appropriations committees that oversee military and defense spending.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in 2010, has received nearly $1.4 million from the defense sector over the course of his career, including $212,000 during the 2008 campaign cycle.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), another sector favorite who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee, placed holds on dozens of President Barack Obama’s appointments in early 2010 to protest cuts in certain Air Force contracts. Shelby received nearly half a million dollars from the defense sector during the 2008 campaign cycle, and he has received $1.3 million during his career.

Lobbying

With this kind of money in the process, is it any wonder that Washington is corrupt?

[Griff]

Suggestion for next time something bad happens and you can't tell the truth yet because of national security: Use the words, "No comment."

[Lamplighter]

McCain uses "Arm the rebels" for that purpose.

[regular.joe]

Before I give my $.02, has anyone here besides me served in a politically sensitive, small foot print place like the consolate in Benghazi? My second to last deployment I spent in Peshawar, Pakistan. My last very short deployment was to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, just got back last Saturday. I have an opinion on this whole Benghazi incident based on experience and a little bit of understanding of our agreements and lack there of with other countries.

If I would have had to shoot it out off the roof top of my team house in Pesh, the Cavalry would not have been called. There are serious issues of sovereignty and acts of war involved in sending troops or a fly over with an air strike. I understood going into a place like Pesh that I was at a higher risk, and would be on my own if shit went south. I suspect the guys in Benghazi knew the same. I really don't care bout the national politics, other then using the deaths of these brave men as a spring board for someones political aspirations. I don't like that.

I'm putting this out here because I think we shouldn't lie to ourselves about this. Most Americans don't seem to understand that we just cant send in an Infantry Battalion or a Seal Team when ever and where ever we want, or just maybe send in some fast movers for 3 guys in a building. There are places that it's not going to happen, it doesn't matter who the President is. Be angry about it if you want, but the facts are not going to change about this. I'm not a politician or a General trying to save my job at the expense of public opinion so I can be honest with ya'll. We got away with schwacking Bin Ladin in PK, the price of this you guys will never know, I'm sure it's going to be astronomical. If we had done a similar high profile action in a country like Russia, we might be trading misiles right now. Is it a tragedy? Yes. Regardless of whether it was riots over a video or an organized attack in country could it have gone different? I don't think so.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Thanks Joe, that's pretty much what I suspected.

[DanaC]

That made stuff a lot clearer, thanks Joe.

[Griff]

Word, Joe.

[SamIam]

Yeah, thank you for putting things in perspective. And thank YOU, Joe, for your service to our country out on the front lines of all this madness. Take care of yourself.

[BigV]

A letter to the editor about sex and military service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...m_opinions_pop

General Order No. 1 prohibits sex (and alcohol consumption) on an Army deployment. Typical deployments last approximately one year, so if West Point graduates follow the academy’s rules, then they abstain for all four of their college years, plus the year-long deployment. Five years of abstinence is enough to make anyone crazy.

[sexobon]

^Better suited to the "Another one bites the dust" thread.^

[BigV]

right. ny mixup

[xoxoxoBruce]

Reading the author's website, she sounds like a expert. Actually she sounds obsessed about it. Of course being an commissioned officer, she could order privates to do her bidding.

[Lamplighter]

Now after Susan Rice has met with McCain, he is still trying his black balling of Rice "and every other nominee"

Obama now has to stand up to McCain, and nominate Rice for Sec of State
... even if Obama doesn't want her.

[classicman]

Obama had and still has every intention of nominating her. I wonder if that was the price she paid to get the nomination.