Benghazi v Beirut

Benghazi v Beirut

by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Huffington Post | Posted: 05/19/2014 6:59 pm EDT
Excerpts:

"My uncle, President John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize winning best-seller Profiles in Courage recounted the stories of courageous U.S. Senators - Republicans and Democrats - who chose patriotism over partisanship and sacrificed personal ambition to national welfare.

The GOP's recent efforts to gin up presidential scandals in punitive hearings, media lynchings, and weekly calls for impeachment, evince a party-wide pathology that puts partisanship over patriotism. For Republicans who believe that patriotism ends with lapel pins and cowboy costumes, it might be useful to consider some historical examples of true patriotism by a political party.

At 6:22 a.m. on Sunday, October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber drove a six-ton truckload of high explosives through a lightly fortified plywood fence, past two marine guards with no bullets in their rifles, and detonated his payload at the Beirut airport. The largest non-nuclear explosion ever recorded toppled the four story U.S. marine barracks from its foundation and killed 241 sleeping soldiers. It was the deadliest day for the Marine Corps since Iwo Jima.

Ignoring protests by Congressional Democrats and his own Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, President Reagan had sent the marines to protect Beirut's airport during the bloody civil war that followed Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon to expel the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Citing the April 1983 U.S. embassy bombing in Beirut, where 63 people died including 17 Americans, Weinberger and Congressional Democrats had argued that Reagan's plans for deploying additional marines to Beirut would make the American soldiers "sitting ducks."

Worse yet, because Reagan had labeled the marines "peacekeepers," he ordered them not to appear "warlike." Their orders forbade them from erecting fortifications or perimeter fences or loading their weapons. Weinberger had entreated Reagan to station the soldiers in a less vulnerable redoubt, instead of the highly exposed and indefensible airport barracks building. Weinberger later lamented.

The American press pilloried President Reagan for putting the marines and servicemen in harm's way without ammunition or any clear mission during a violent civil war in a country rife with sophisticated suicide bombers and a history of successful attacks against Americans. CBS Evening News reported,

'the marines rely on the inexperienced Lebanese army to check vehicles. Today, all kinds of vehicles were being waved right through without the slightest verification... the question remains what are the marines doing in Beirut? They are here to prop up a government that still controls only a part of Beirut and none of the rest of the country, and are being told to sit at the Beirut airport where they became prime targets.'

Reagan's response to press badgering about the absence of ammunition and protective barriers only stirred public anger about the president's lack of concern for troop safety. Reagan's explanation for the blunder seemed flippant, "Anyone who ever had a kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would be."

Late on the evening of the deadly attack, top Congressional leaders including House Speaker, Tip O'Neill became even more unsettled while attending a secret meeting with the president, his cabinet and Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House residence where they had been spirited in separate cars and through secret corridors from the Old Executive Building.

Reagan began with a story of the Filipino people who supposedly greeted American marines with flowers and flags as they landed on Philippine beaches during World War II. A flummoxed Tip O'Neill considered that story to be apocryphal -- perhaps, a scene from an old movie.

Reagan next pledged to the stunned Congressional leaders that he would never allow the terrorists to drive the marines from Beirut and promised that the U.S. would only abandon its watch when peace was assured.

Impatient, O'Neill pounded the table, interrupting Reagan's sentimental flight of fancy. O'Neill demanded loudly, "Mr. President, you are going to have to tell Americans why Americans are in Lebanon?" O'Neill's forceful response shocked Reagan speechless.

The subsequent Defense Department investigation placed blame directly on the White House for the tragedy. Following the bombing, a bitter Weinberger refused a direct presidential order to launch retaliatory strikes against Shiite encampments in Beirut and summarily withdrew the remaining 1,600 marines from Lebanon.

Four years later, Reagan was caught illegally selling 2,000 missiles to the Iranian terror state in violation of American law and a U.S.-led international arms embargo. Reagan had used the proceeds of that criminal enterprise to illegally fund Nicaraguan terrorists in violation of American laws forbidding the president from financially supporting the Contras.

Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger had opposed the Iran/Contra deal from the outset. Shultz warned the president during its planning stages that funding the Contras was "an impeachable offense."

The fact that the White House traded some missiles for hostages, set off a brisk bout of new hostage taking across the Mid-East. Looking directly into the television camera Reagan publicly told the American people that he had known nothing about the caper. A week later, the press uncovered documents authorizing the arms for hostages deal - signed and approved by Reagan in his own handwriting. Reagan was forced to publicly acknowledge his deceit.

Instead of politically exploiting this impeccably documented spree of high crimes and felonies by the president and his henchmen, the Democratically controlled Congress instead pursued a deliberate path to avoid impeachment proceedings that might distract the country from urgent economic and foreign policy concerns.

Tip O'Neill working side by side with Senate Republicans took impeachment off the table and then hammered out a quiet deal under which Reagan fired his high level staff and brought Senator Howard Baker in to supervise a house cleaning and allow Reagan to serve out his term in dignity.

That was an era when patriotic politicians put their country's interest above their narrow political agendas, a time when politics was an honorable profession and the men who wielded gavels loved their country more than they loved power."

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/benghazi-beirut-bombing_b_5353757.html
.....

IMO: This is exactly what the republican party should be doing today by pushing Obamacare for the people of America. Private careers can wait as parties join together to fight for the interests of the masses. There are still millions of Americans with no insurance because their republican run states have not opened exchanges and helped the American people sign up instead of fighting it endlessly in over 50 bills proposing repeal, gutting, and cessation of Obamacare. IOW: the republicans find their agenda more important than the health and wellbeing of American citizens, the very people they swore to uphold and protect when they entered Congress.

The republican party should have stopped their unAmerican agenda and created jobs for the millions of unemployed American workers and should have worked tirelessly together, regardless of party, to bring America back from the terrible Bush years where America nearly succumbed to the evil brought by the Bush tenure. Their war crimes will be remembered and make the United States more hated in the world because of the torture illegally performed in secret prisons around the world

Instead, the republican party thought nothing of trying to gut Obamacare, cared nothing for the suffering of the millions of unemployed due to a republican president, and actively fought any help President Obama tried to give to the American people. Currently they are united in stopping the minimum wage increase as a way of helping the working poor due to substandard wages and no representation in Congress.

Any average American who votes for any republican in 2014 or 2016 after they shut down the government on two occasions in a fit of anger, refused creation of jobs, and ignored the plight of the poor and vulnerable, saying they were "lazy" and "didn't have the ethic to work" and cutting off their unemployment checks at Christmas time leaving families without Christmas presents...while they went home for the holidays to be with their families and opening presents. This was cruel, indecent and showed how callous and unfeeling they were.

And Americans will not forget it at the precinct and polling places in every town and city of our country, for our strength remains in our numbers at the polls, and which frustrates the hell out of republicans that keep dumping money into every politicians' coffers that they can corrupt, while America has long since known that American people come first; their party comes last. The people will always survive while political parties won't.

 

I remember that day.

I do not remember endless partisan hearings after the fact, with the primary intention to blame the President for what happened.

In those days, when a tragedy struck, the first priority was to support America, not blame Americans.

 

Yeah I agree. Reminds me of all the attacks bush had to deal with from the wacky left during the 9/11 tragedy.

 

If Reagan had only known these were rules libs were going to make up someday he could said

"Hey! No more talk about beiruit, did you hear what happened on Dec 7 1941 when Roosevelt let 2403 American servicemen die during the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?"

 

Hmmmmm

I don't remember endless Congressional hearings to determine why Bush was to blame for the 9/11 tragedy.

As I recall Congress was rather supportive of the President after 9/11.

There were certainly whackjobs on the left- truthers- who continue to this day- they were the left's version of Birthers. But I don't remember 8 Congressional investigations to determine why Bush allowed the terrorists to destroy the Twin Towers.

 

Well what Beirut and Pearl Harbor had in common were that:
a) Hundreds of American troops died in both attacks
b) And after the attacks Congress supported the President.

Contrast that to Benghazi.......

 

Another article, discussing the difference between how Beirut was handled compared to what is happening with Benghazi

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/05/ronald-reagans-benghazi.html

Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.

If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

 

The point is that when the tragedy of Beirut happened- Congress handled it much, much more responsibly than they are handling Benghazi.

It isn't that Reagan made mistakes in Beirut- it is the contrast in how the two incidents were dealt with.

 

Libs had plenty of criticism for Bush after 9-11.

Which is ok.

Bush responded forcefully after the attack and there was nothing to complain about how he responded.

But if he hadn't then bring it on.

Obama OTOH ran away to places unknown for the entire 7 hour attack and made no effort to save our people in libya.

 

President Reagan didn't field 2 armies for over 10 years fighting the very people that attacked us in Lebanon. In Benghazi, AQ attacked us after we have been fighting them for 10 years +, and it was downplayed. Big difference.

 

I don't recall all of those Congressional investigations to figure out why Bush was to blame for 9/11.

Remember- this article is not about 'criticism' of Benghazi- this is about the contrast between how Congress responded to the attacks in Benghazi and Beirut.

 

Hmmmm I am not quite certain what you think you are trying to convey.

In Beirut, the attack on the barracks happened 6 months AFTER our embassy was attacked, killing 63 Americans.

Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

 

Congress responded differently after Pearl Harbor too.

Since the situation and facts are different between Bengazi and 9-11 the response of congress will be different too.

 

America sent its troops to fight AQ and the Taliban, and other extremists. We have been in the field for over 10 years. Why were there no bullets in the Marines' weapons? You positive Reagan wanted it that way? Or did Congress or someone else convince him otherwise, out of this Muslim Rage theory? US troops (*)(*)(*)(*) Muslims off, so we better run when stuff blows up. That's what I'm getting out of US foreign policy for 4 decades in dealing with these people.

 

Yep in Pearl Harbor and 9/11 thousands of Americans died. In Benghazi 4 Americans died.

Not sure why that justifies Congress acting responsibly after Beirut and Benghazi- and irresponsibly after Benghazi.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that supposed to be in someway a response to my post?

 

Pearl Harbor and 9-11 were very short attacks.

Two hours at Pearl Harbor and maybe 1 hour on 9-11.

There was nothing FDR or Bush could have done about them.

But the attack on Benghazi lasted 7 hours and it appears that obama did not even show up at the Situation Room where he belonged.

 

Yes, the point is, in Beirut our conflict with Islamic jihad was just beginning. Benghazi is 4 decades later, and we are apparently using this Muslim Rage theory to dictate our responses to the jihadists. So comparing the reaction to Beirut to the one in Benghazi is a false comparison. To have the same response would be to say we have learned absolutely nothing in this 40 year conflict.

 

Oh- so if the attack is longer than 2 hours- then Congress should focus on blaming the President rather than focusing on finding out what happened, and how to prevent future attacks?

- - - Updated - - -

So are you saying that we have learned that the proper response to a Islamist attack is to hold Congressional hearings to determine why the President is to blame?

 

The proper response is to find out why those 4 men would have went down in history as dying to a mob, and not to the enemy, if it wasn't for Fox News and the Congressional investigations/pressure. If I am serving my country, and the enemy kills me, I expect my family to be told that, and for my sacrifice to be recognized. It would be dishonorable for my government to claim I died otherwise. You have determined the purpose of the hearings is to blame the President. But I've read 4 of the investigations in full, and I found very little pertaining to the President.

 

It is obama and hillary who have been withholding information about the attack from congress.

And the questions about obamas disgraceful performance during the 7 hour attack are completely justified.

 

(I'm emphasizing your words!)

 

And, OF COURSE, YOU sitting on a political posting board on a Thu afternoon KNOW that Hillary and Obama are withholding information??

You don't know S!

 

None of the poster's comments are related to the story, but oh well.

Reagan made several mistakes, and leaving the Marines vulnerable was probably his biggest mistake. Not retaliating? That really pissed off a lot of people, including me to this very day.

 

well, Reagan was a white Republican, so he gets special treatment.