Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama lied to the world about the Bengazi attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    One thing that nags at me is why the ambassador went to Benghazi at all. If it is true that the embassy had asked for beefed up security, the degree of risk must have been known. Maybe they didn't rate it that high. Apparently the ambassador didn't.

    Of course, the administration can't use that argument, because failure to address any risk is a failure in itself.

    I suspect the ambassador relied too heavily on his popularity in Libya to protect him.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #77
      Maybe he had an immediate job to do.

      Here the US Ambassador is frequently seen outside of the capitol.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        Maybe he had an immediate job to do.
        I suspect he'd want to be alive after his business is concluded. You don't walk onto the freeway even to get a million bucks stacked up on the passing lane.

        Here the US Ambassador is frequently seen outside of the capitol.
        As they would say in Libya, here is not there.
        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

        Comment


        • #79
          z,

          That is information from government emails, not 5th junior counsel to the state chair of former candidate X's staff.
          better...but again, brief e-mails from a regional security office tells us nothing about who cleared it, who knew, and what was done. looking at the timeline:

          The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

          The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

          The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

          A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

          A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."
          in short, three brief e-mails with very little specific information, which reached unknown individuals within the white house, pentagon, and the intel community, and one jumps to the assumption that on this basis that the President and the entire national security apparatus had complete real-time knowledge of what was going on and decided to do nothing about it?
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by astralis View Post
            z,



            better...but again, brief e-mails from a regional security office tells us nothing about who cleared it, who knew, and what was done. looking at the timeline:



            in short, three brief e-mails with very little specific information, which reached unknown individuals within the white house, pentagon, and the intel community, and one jumps to the assumption that on this basis that the President and the entire national security apparatus had complete real-time knowledge of what was going on and decided to do nothing about it?
            Not just the emails, every thing taken in total leaves Obama on the hook.

            Comment


            • #81
              G W Bush was re-elected after 911 happened on his watch. How is this more terrible?
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 29 Oct 12,, 02:32.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                One thing that nags at me is why the ambassador went to Benghazi at all. If it is true that the embassy had asked for beefed up security, the degree of risk must have been known. Maybe they didn't rate it that high. Apparently the ambassador didn't.

                Of course, the administration can't use that argument, because failure to address any risk is a failure in itself.

                I suspect the ambassador relied too heavily on his popularity in Libya to protect him.

                I agree. It's nagged me and I've been wondering why he was in Benghazi with minimal protection, especially on the anniversary of 9/11. I was in the Middle East (as military and civilian) on several 9/11 anniversaries, and we were always advised to not go anywhere and remain unseen, so as not to provoke anything...out of sight, out of mind. But it's also puzzled me why a gay ambassador was assigned to Libya, considering the open intolerance/hostility of muslims towards gays and lesbians.

                I did read a conspiracy theory that the ambassador was supposed to be kidnapped (arranged through the White House and the Muslim Brotherhood). Obama would swoop in and rescue him before Election Day...another wonderful example of Barry's foreign policy prowess (the "October Surprise"). Unfortunately, the thugs that were hired were too careless and let the ambassador die. The conspiracy fits with the denials for assistance to the operators on sight, plus the removal (firing) of General Ham (commander of AfriCom).

                What appalls me is the lack of coverage on Benghazi by the Main Stream Media. Lives were lost and this coverup is far larger and more serious than Watergate.
                Last edited by McFire; 29 Oct 12,, 00:10. Reason: typo
                "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by astralis View Post
                  z,



                  better...but again, brief e-mails from a regional security office tells us nothing about who cleared it, who knew, and what was done. looking at the timeline:



                  in short, three brief e-mails with very little specific information, which reached unknown individuals within the white house, pentagon, and the intel community, and one jumps to the assumption that on this basis that the President and the entire national security apparatus had complete real-time knowledge of what was going on and decided to do nothing about it?

                  Asty:

                  The administration can't have it both ways. If, as it is now saying to its critics, there wasn't enough information to know what happened in Benghazi hours after the attack, then why did it come out almost immediately afterwards with the story that the attack was a 9/11 protest gone awry?

                  This kind of squishy reasoning would make even the most blase inside-the-beltway observer suspicious. The betting is that the administration won't release the results of its internal investigation into the affair until after election day.
                  To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    JAD,

                    . If, as it is now saying to its critics, there wasn't enough information to know what happened in Benghazi hours after the attack, then why did it come out almost immediately afterwards with the story that the attack was a 9/11 protest gone awry?
                    the need to respond to the news-cycle, thus depending on initial, unpolished intelligence.

                    frankly, this is the simplest explanation and makes the most sense as per occam's razor, based upon what little we do know.

                    everything else begins to shade into conspiracy theory, and really bad conspiracy theory at that; how obama was supposed to politically benefit from either 1. letting his ambassador die or 2. not responding and purposefully pretending that it wasn't a pre-meditated attack is beyond me.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      JAD,



                      the need to respond to the news-cycle, thus depending on initial, unpolished intelligence.

                      frankly, this is the simplest explanation and makes the most sense as per occam's razor, based upon what little we do know.

                      Asty:

                      I didn't hear the administration saying, 'well,we had to put out something for the news cycle.' You know the howls would still be heard in the MSM if it did. But say that was the motive, which I can buy, knowing Washington, then why the double standard? Why criticize those who had a story closer to the truth than it did? Why admonish the latter to wait for the facts to emerge when it didn't. IMO, the administration ends up tacitly admitting it was wrong.


                      everything else begins to shade into conspiracy theory, and really bad conspiracy theory at that; how obama was supposed to politically benefit from either 1. letting his ambassador die or 2. not responding and purposefully pretending that it wasn't a pre-meditated attack is beyond me.
                      Well, we'll see. Was it bungling? Political panic? Bad intel? Bad policy? Bad call on a possible rescue effort?

                      One thing we know; it was bad public affairs management. That being the case, I don't see why we can't speculate on what went on in the White House when the initial press release was being written. Maybe the White House was just too quick to assume that what took place in Benghazi was similar to what was taking place in front of US embassies in Egypt and Yemen. Or maybe it thought the story was plausible enough to pass muster. Or maybe there was a political motive. I know if I were running Obama's campaign, I would rather the release say a protest went bad than an outright AQ attack took place, and then hope sympathy and services for the slain would distract from the facts long to get past the election. I believe the facts will come out, but the motive will never be clarified to anyone's satisfaction. Nothing new in government, eh?
                      To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                        G W Bush was re-elected after 911 happened on his watch. How is this more terrible?
                        Because Bush and his administration didn't immediately start the It's Not My Fault Dance with 17 different stories about 1700 different outcomes.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          JAD,

                          Well, we'll see. Was it bungling? Political panic? Bad intel? Bad policy? Bad call on a possible rescue effort?

                          One thing we know; it was bad public affairs management. That being the case, I don't see why we can't speculate on what went on in the White House when the initial press release was being written. Maybe the White House was just too quick to assume that what took place in Benghazi was similar to what was taking place in front of US embassies in Egypt and Yemen. Or maybe it thought the story was plausible enough to pass muster. Or maybe there was a political motive. I know if I were running Obama's campaign, I would rather the release say a protest went bad than an outright AQ attack took place, and then hope sympathy and services for the slain would distract from the facts long to get past the election. I believe the facts will come out, but the motive will never be clarified to anyone's satisfaction. Nothing new in government, eh?
                          this i can completely understand. but it's a different animal than the certainty in some areas that it's a clear-cut case of 'obama lied, our ambassador died'.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            JAD,



                            this i can completely understand. but it's a different animal than the certainty in some areas that it's a clear-cut case of 'obama lied, our ambassador died'.
                            I'm not ready to say Obama lied. Incompetence is bad enough. They've handled the media side of this thing very badly. It almost defies belief. I keep wondering if they think it's better to take a hit on bad media handling than a hit on something else. It seems to me they should have enough information to put out a clear release on the facts of the attack and the administration's response to them. They don't have to wait until the FBI tracks down the culprits to issue a release. That could take a year or more. This smacks of the same foot dragging the AG did on Fast and Furious.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              completely agree; this administration sucks at the media side, as you've pointed out. look at how the administration never even tried to sell, politically or media-wise, their two biggest domestic initiatives.
                              Last edited by astralis; 29 Oct 12,, 16:31.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                completely agree; this administration sucks at the media side, as you've pointed out. look at how the administration never even tried to sell, politically or media-wise, their two biggest domestic initiatives.
                                You are completely stoned.

                                First of all, comparing an active misinformation campaign to cover up fatal negligence and a collapsed foreign policy is not really of the same magnitude as forgetting to do a press push for your favorite political agenda. Secondly, you're dead-ass wrong anyway, as usual. They strong-armed and bullied Obamacare politically by shutting out the Republican legislators, yes; but the stimulus got plenty of play and certainly for Obamacare there was almost a year-long push with ad buys, op eds, and very public meetings with doctors and the like.

                                -dale

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X