bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
The two CIA operatives who came to help with the fight at the Benghazi consulate where told to stand down 3 times ignoring the order the 3rd time and went to the fight. Also reports of two drones and a A130U gunship watching the whole attack live.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 1, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter): The two CIA operatives who came to help with the fight at the Benghazi consulate where told to stand down 3 times ignoring the order the 3rd time and went to the fight. Also reports of two drones and a A130U gunship watching the whole attack live.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3338 times:
Risk adversion, it has been going on for awhile now, Commanders afraid to release weapons that could boomerang on from the militaries JAG corp on bringing them up on charges. Also the State dept is full of non risk taking careerists who never stick their own neck out for the fear of it getting chopped off.
Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source? I don't see people asking for the obviously leftwing biased MSM for additional sources. The MSM probably won't cover this because it exposes the guy in the White House as incompetent or a traitor. So much for Leon Panetta's claim they had no intelligence.
[Edited 2012-10-26 13:16:50]
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3330 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter): So who and why would give the order to stand down and let the ambassador get killed?
Not sure what you are trying to imply here, but at that point, it would be the CIA chain of command.
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2): Risk adversion, it has been going on for awhile now, Commanders afraid to release weapons that could boomerang on from the militaries JAG corp on bringing them up on charges. Also the State dept is full of non risk taking careerists who never stick their own neck out for the fear of it getting chopped off.
Problem here was that it was not an active war zone, and the Libyan Government was supposed to be providing security. There are a lot of ramifications for violating a countries soveriegnty. Especially if you don't know what was going on.
Hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking make this look like a fiasco, but at the time , no one knew what was going on.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3330 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source?
Because Fox is neither unbalanced nor is it trustworthy. Would you accept an article that is only published in the HuffPo without question? I sure hope you wouldn't, because I wouldn't.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3325 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): The MSM probably won't cover this because it exposes the guy in the White House as incompetent or a traitor. So much for Leon Panetta's claim they had no intelligence
This is why we need somehting other than fox news. it turns people into irrational fools.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14347 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter): So who and why would give the order to stand down and let the ambassador get killed?
Because going around shooting if you aren't sure who to shoot is a poor idea? Or that two CIA agents maybe aren't the best option for fighting off a mob and may be more useful waiting and watching.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source?
Because they have a bad habit of reporting things that aren't really true.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 9, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3294 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8): ...and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT are such fine journalistic organs.
When you believe that only Fox is trustworthy and that ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are all part of the same conspiracy, then I can't reason with you or argue with you, so I won't.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2558 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3290 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 4): Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):So who and why would give the order to stand down and let the ambassador get killed?
Not sure what you are trying to imply here, but at that point, it would be the CIA chain of command.
And the CIA reports to who? When an attack is going on do youu think the CIA just sits on it and does nothing. There was flash traffic worldwide when this happened. The Pentagon, State and the White house new what was happening. This did not happen in a CIA vacuum.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
Because going around shooting if you aren't sure who to shoot is a poor idea? Or that two CIA agents maybe aren't the best option for fighting off a mob and may be more useful waiting and watching
Sorry but CIA had special forces on the ground near the compound. They heard the fighting and could not wait any longer and went to the sound of gunfire and died while Obama went to bed. This is turning ointo one of the most disgusting disasters that I have seen in my lifetime.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 6): This is why we need somehting other than fox news. it turns people into irrational fools.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Because Fox is neither unbalanced nor is it trustworthy.
This what they say when they have no answer. Blame the source
Quoting casinterest (Reply 4): Problem here was that it was not an active war zone, and the Libyan Government was supposed to be providing security. There are a lot of ramifications for violating a countries soveriegnty.
You have to be kidding right? Not a war zone? Violating a countries soverignty? Makes me want to puke to hear this coming out of the left's mouth today.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3280 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8): But they had no problem violating Libyan airspace when the Colonel was in power.
You act as if a 2-4 hour attack is the same as a weeks and months long process of diplomatic movements for much larger issues .
But please keep up with faux outrage from the fake news channel over irrational conparisons.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 10): You have to be kidding right? Not a war zone? Violating a countries soverignty? Makes me want to puke to hear this coming out of the left's mouth today
Explain it then? What would you call it if China came in and blasted DC to protect their consolate ?
You have no clue what soveriegnty and diplomacy is.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 13, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
I'm sure if we showed more force there'd be multiple incidents where we blast away civilians. No one in the US wanted these 4 Americans killed, but we know nothing about this story. Were they trying to engage a few people that were obviously trying to kill the ambassador or were they looking at permission to fire away at a crowd killing innocent people? (Sure some in the crowd were guilty, but you can't assume everyone at that protest was out for blood.)
This Libya thing is out of control, absolutely. I usually jump on people that accuse one side (blanketing a whole group of people rather that a few individuals) but there are so many on the right shooting at the hip, taking every tiny detail in this incident and automatically sending out a mob for the President's head. It's getting ridiculous.
The President isn't Jesus and he is not going to chose the 100% right course of action 100% of the time. Yes there are many factors that could have been handled better, but yall are jumping on him like so many jump off a police officer when he has to use force... there are so many things going on, so many unknowns, you have to escalate force just enough or you kill innocent people and are screwed, and if you don't react quickly enough people will die as well.
Throw any other person in the President's place and I bet you 90% would have handled it the same way... maybe they wouldn't have a whole group that is looking to crucify them at every wrong move.
mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 12): Explain it then? What would you call it if China came in and blasted DC to protect their consolate ?
You have no clue what soveriegnty and diplomacy is.
The problem with that is that there was no central government control of Benghazi. It doesn't get much news but much of Libya is not under central government control.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3250 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source?
Because Fox has become in the weeks leading up to the election nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Zero balance whatsoever, all neutral or pro-Obama news stories are not covered. In fact most non-political stories are ignored unless they can make the Obama administration look bad.
Todays big GDP news is not even mentioned on Foxnews.com! (hmmmm, can't imagine why....)
Every day for the last couple weeks foxnews.com has run a big-scary-headline and an unflattering Obama picture as their main headline, and has instigated a permanent feature on covering not the news, but other news services, which they label "Bias Alert".
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8): CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT are such fine journalistic organs.
Do you ever read them?
I goto Fox, CNN, the BBC wlmost every day. CNN makes a conscious effort to print an equal number of good and bad stories on both candidates, and even more revealing covers stories like the hurricane, the Italian PM who is going to jail, and recent positive US economic news (GDP revised up to 2% growth from 1.3%). Meanwhile, a murder in Libya weeks ago is held by Fox to be the most important story for more than a month!
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 18, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3230 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 17): Meanwhile, a murder in Libya weeks ago is held by Fox to be the most important story for more than a month!
And we must appluad their bravery since everyone else knows this issue is being blown up due to politics lacks journalistic integrity and is corrupt
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 11): You act as if a 2-4 hour attack is the same as a weeks and months long process of diplomatic movements for much larger issues .
I'll remember that when you're being assaulted because I don't want to be accused of tresspassing.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): This guy is no slouch, but he is Director.
...and the silence is deafening from him.
Quoting Pu (Reply 17): Meanwhile, a murder in Libya weeks ago is held by Fox to be the most important story for more than a month!
So I suppose you don't care if someone lies about how you died or worse did nothing to stop it. BTW, if Fox is so BS why do you even waste your time going there?
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): BTW, if Fox is so BS why do you even waste your time going there?
To understand people
....who only goto Fox
and
....who get emotional satisfaction from being made angry
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): So I suppose you don't care if someone lies about how you died or worse did nothing to stop it
Priorities, bjorn.
I don't care much about a murder in an emerging pro-American democracy that is nevertheless not in total control of fringe anti-American elements. 1000s of Americans die of unnatural causes overseas every year, some by foul play. Regrettable, but not high on the list of America's problems.
Nearly 2000 Americans have died on the streets of America at the hands of other Americans since the Benghazi matter that is so important to the Right: to many of us America's problems are primarily at home and NOT the fault of the Muslim world...but, we get it, the "foreign threat," especially Islamic, is a big deal to Republicans. Less so for others.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6049 posts, RR: 25 Reply 21, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): So I suppose you don't care if someone lies about how you died or worse did nothing to stop it.
Where was all the outrage from conservatives when Bush sent thousands of troops into Iraq to die without proper training or equipment to deal with insurgent forces...a war based on intelligence that everyone knew was faulty.
I'm not saying the handling of Benghazi was done well, but conservative outrage over it is a joke.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4789 posts, RR: 9 Reply 23, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3133 times:
Are CIA operatives rambo (or rather Jason Bourne) ? What good would have they done ? And what about a freakin' gunship ! A great way to turn the ambassador in a red splash.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3126 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): ...and the silence is deafening from him.
Ahahaha, how quickly fortunes change in the world of political diehards!
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source?
Because the people who post stories from it have a reputation, earned or not, for following it up with stuff like this:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): I don't see people asking for the obviously leftwing biased MSM for additional sources. The MSM probably won't cover this because it exposes the guy in the White House as incompetent or a traitor. So much for Leon Panetta's claim they had no intelligence.
I think that on balance, people who obliquely accuse the President of the United States of conspiracy and treason are more likely to twist established facts and take things out of context, than other people who are not making such accusations. At least, be aware of the company you keep when you're saying such things.
In all seriousness, the Benghazi tragedy has become yet another manufactured-outrage story that sells big when few other things are happening. So maybe there was a confused initial response, so maybe the first few statements released didn't exactly reflect what actually took place. What are we supposed to make of that? Very few catastrophes come with instructions for what to do as and after they occur, and frankly the public has forgiven much larger oversights and failures in the past.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 25, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3180 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): I don't see people asking for the obviously leftwing biased MSM for additional sources.
All the time people ask. No one on the right trusts HufPo, WaPo, MSNBC just like no one on the left trusts FOX or CBS.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): The MSM probably won't cover this because it exposes the guy in the White House as incompetent or a traitor.
I notice the "balanced" news source FOX didn't do any story at all about Bush Sr. meeting with the bin Laden family the morning of Sept. 11 or intercepters told to stand down when four passenger planes made U-Turns over the East Coast or the only flight allowed to leave was carrying the bin Laden family.
In fact, when 3000+ people died that day, it was the RIGHT WING who started politicizing it. It was the RIGHT WING who started talking war and fear and blaming Clinton.
Now, about this Lybia attack: there is a chain of command. The consulate in Bengazi asked American forces in Tripoli for support. Not Obama. Tripoli sent the request to an undersecretary in Washington. Not Obama. That undersecratary sent the request to Kennedy. Not Obama. It could very well be that there is a rule somewhere that the president deligates such requests for such small outposts to... oh, I don't know... the director of the CIA. That rule may have been put on the books in 1801. But, it would still be Obama's fault.
FOX and the right wing hates Obama so much they will grasp at any straw they possibly can to make him out to be Hitler. The next step FOX will take is asking Obama when he stopped beating Michelle and, when Obama laughs off such a stupid question, FOX will run with "OBAMA BEATS HIS WIFE!!" for months and months and months.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4260 posts, RR: 12 Reply 26, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3160 times:
Remember when the National Enquirer was the only one reporting on the John Edward's love child?
Remember when it was only CBS News reporting on Fast and Furious?
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
Just because one news outlet is reporting it doesn't make it untrue.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16): This guy is no slouch, but he is Director.
Why would the CIA issue a statement distancing themselves from an order that was never given?
You really think this is contrived, over-blown and irrelevant?
An ambassador is dead.
The administration lied about the events leading up to that death.
The President stood in front of the UN and mislead that august body as to the trigger for the attacks.
The President's proxies went out and claimed that a video caused the violence that led to the death of an ambassador and 3 US citizens, when he knew it did not.
Oh yeah, and Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Killed by terrorists while serving in Libya.
Say whatever you want to say to defend President Obama, but, had this happened under a Republican President, the media would be howling for blood at the highest levels of the administration. If you don't believe that, you are being dishonest with yourself.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 27, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3175 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26): Why would the CIA issue a statement distancing themselves from an order that was never given?
Because people are reporting that they actually did give that order?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26): Say whatever you want to say to defend President Obama, but, had this happened under a Republican President, the media would be howling for blood at the highest levels of the administration. If you don't believe that, you are being dishonest with yourself.
And your point is what exactly? It didn't happen under a Republican president; the closest we can come to that is comparing various events that did, and I think it's already clear that that isn't much help. No one gets anything from wars of suppositions.
My point is that the media is providing political cover for this administration. There is enough obfuscation on the part of the administration, that the media should be asking all kinds of questions that they are not.
That's all. That's my point. I wish the media would do its job, even if doing their job sinks their darling candidate.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 4): There are a lot of ramifications for violating a countries soveriegnty
Yes, there are. Our sovereignty was violated that day also. Executing a rescue mission to our consulate may or may not have been frowned upon by the legitimate government of Libya. They had recognized and accepted our ambassador's credentials, hadn't they?
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 30, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3146 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): ...and the silence is deafening from him.
His job is to talk to the President, not journalists.
Quoting D L X (Reply 22): "The Daily Mail is a conservative, British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper"
And The Sun? At least it has the Page 3 Girls.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26): Why would the CIA issue a statement distancing themselves from an order that was never given?
Maybe because they were given the green light to comment on that issue.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26): Say whatever you want to say to defend President Obama, but, had this happened under a Republican President, the media would be howling for blood at the highest levels of the administration. If you don't believe that, you are being dishonest with yourself.
Maybe I should yell a bit - General Petraeus was given a lot of high level assignments under Bush & Cheney. Probably a Republican. Maybe I should point the blame at him, but I won't.
Reality is that 9/11 happened under President Bush's watch, but we didn't yell that loud at Bush. Looks like it only gets ugly when the black guy is President.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19715 posts, RR: 56 Reply 32, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3144 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29): As time goes on, the truth will come out. It always does.
Indeed. And until it does, perhaps we should refrain from drawing conclusions based on heat-of-the-moment statements, emails, phone calls, etc. which anyone with any experience at all with dealing with crisis situations should know to be frequently unreliable?
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4260 posts, RR: 12 Reply 33, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3127 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): Reality is that 9/11 happened under President Bush's watch, but we didn't yell that loud at Bush. Looks like it only gets ugly when the black guy is President.
Really. You missed the whole intelligence briefing thing? What did Bush know and when did he know it? Come on. When the media shook off their new found patriotism they went after the administration with gusto.
And, classy of you to bring up race.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 30): Maybe I should yell a bit - General Petraeus was given a lot of high level assignments under Bush & Cheney. Probably a Republican. Maybe I should point the blame at him, but I won't.
And, like a bunch of your posts, that makes no sense as a response to what I wrote.
Quoting Mir (Reply 32): Indeed. And until it does, perhaps we should refrain from drawing conclusions based on heat-of-the-moment statements, emails, phone calls, etc. which anyone with any experience at all with dealing with crisis situations should know to be frequently unreliable?
Actually, we are left to draw conclusions because the media refuses to ask the questions that are warranted by the information we have. What's left? Sit down quietly and wait for the election to be over so that we can finally find out what happened? This administration and its willing accomplice the media are stalling for time.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 35, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
What is the lie? Being vague and not shooting from the hip? I'm not in politics, but I can definitely see why you need to be vague sometimes. Correct me if I'm wrong, what's the big "lie?" All the ones I hear are pretty weak at best
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 36, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): I'll remember that when you're being assaulted because I don't want to be accused of tresspassing
I wouldn't trust you with a beer run , never mind my own rescue. You'd probably just tell the 130 to open fire without having a clue who is in the building and who is a friendly or not.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 15): he problem with that is that there was no central government control of Benghazi. It doesn't get much news but much of Libya is not under central government control.
There are forces that the US is working with to establish the Government. You forget why these Americans were there to being with.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19):
"Defense department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, according to CBS News, but ultimately decided not to "
Exactly, Because they didn't have enough intel to launch an attack because they didn't know what was going on , and whether they would make it worse or not. Plus the Libyan's were supposed to be defending the consulate. This is where the issue ultimately lies, as the defensive position of this Embassy was compromised. However Fake news runs a story on here say from a couple of janitors instead of asking the heads of the state department and the CIA what happened. Do you know why? Read on for more below.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
Remember when the National Enquirer was the only one reporting on the John Edward's love child?
Remember when it was only CBS News reporting on Fast and Furious?
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut.
Just because one news outlet is reporting it doesn't make it untrue.
When the one outlet is Fake news, you can bet it has a political agenda behind it. And at least when John Edward's love child was involved, there was a love child .
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
Say whatever you want to say to defend President Obama, but, had this happened under a Republican President, the media would be howling for blood at the highest levels of the administration. If you don't believe that, you are being dishonest with yourself.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
Yes, there are. Our sovereignty was violated that day also. Executing a rescue mission to our consulate may or may not have been frowned upon by the legitimate government of Libya. They had recognized and accepted our ambassador's credentials, hadn't they?
The legitimate Government would not have been appreciative had out troops killed theirs or done excessive damage with very little intel as to what was really going on. And this was the case. The Generals decided not to go in, because unlike the fake news cheerleaders, they valued their men's lives and would not put them at risk in a situation where they could not access the risk.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29): That's all. That's my point. I wish the media would do its job, even if doing their job sinks their darling candidate.
That one should go straight to the koch brothers as they continue to stir up animosity and angst amongst thier viewers who can't comprehend complex issues , and would rather settle for anger and angst and reaction instead of figuring out what happened.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19715 posts, RR: 56 Reply 37, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33): What's left? Sit down quietly and wait for the election to be over so that we can finally find out what happened?
Sit down and wait for the investigation to be over, yes. Like the people who actually know how the intelligence game works (like Condi Rice) have suggested.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 980 posts, RR: 1 Reply 38, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3094 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 10): This is turning ointo one of the most disgusting disasters that I have seen in my lifetime.
What are you, twelve? If this is the worst thing you've ever seen, all I can ask is in what universe, where?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 10):
You have to be kidding right? Not a war zone? Violating a countries soverignty? Makes me want to puke to hear this coming out of the left's mouth today.
Yeahup, we generally like to respect other people's boundaries. Over the last decade, you might think otherwise is true, given the extreme right wing politics of the time, but it's really not what we want to be doing as a nation, the whole violating our global neighbors for no reason thing, that is.
Like the State Department, I can see the CIA reviewing the issues (and actions) very carefully and delivering a solid report to the President.
Well, then it seems that's all that really needs to happen. Slow news day I guess.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19):
So I suppose you don't care if someone lies about how you died or worse did nothing to stop it.
If I were dead, it's very unlikely I'd care much about anything at all.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33): When the media shook off their new found patriotism they went after the administration with gusto.
Well, yeah. If you'll recall we were embarking on a campaign that ended up killing over 100,000 Iraqis. Authorizing something like that, for what turned out to be no reason, we'll recall, should be followed up with "gusto".
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33): And, classy of you to bring up race.
If it's an issue, it's an issue. What's with the reactionary denial?
Posting without Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 39, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 37): That one should go straight to the koch brothers
They are a force at least as influential on US politics as TV itself.
.
.
.
A lot of this is less of a deliberate bias in the "left wing media," and more just a difference in what the left and right deem as important. The right sees the Muslim Middle East as a big threat to America, while the left doesn't rate the threat as great. The Repulicans get angry at burning the US flag and other insults to America - and yearn to retaliate....while the Democrats have a different standard as to what requires a response and what does not.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 40, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3058 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 22): And if you said he would pick the Daily Mail as his "alternative" news source, you win the prize!
"The Daily Mail is a conservative, British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper"
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that the Daily Mail story cited CBS News as the source.
Or is CBS News suddenly a conservative mouthpiece as well?
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19): "Defense department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, according to CBS News, but ultimately decided not to "
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 41, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3058 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33): You missed the whole intelligence briefing thing? What did Bush know and when did he know it?
The Democratic chair of the intelligence committee did not launch full-scale investigations into how 9/11 could have been prevented, did he? The Democratic chair of the intelligence commitee did not set out to make Bush II look like he didn't know what he was doing and bring him down, did he? The only reason Issa is doing this is to bring down Obama. TA-DA!! That's it! That is the whole reason for this. They could be balancing the budget or creating jobs or doing something useful, but they decide that taking out Obama is more important.
Before anyone gets on my case about it: Budgets MUST start from the House. Read the Constitution. The President can not spend. Period. Only the House can. And, right now, the House is controlled by which party? Meaning: which party can balance the budget?
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4260 posts, RR: 12 Reply 42, posted (6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 42): Before anyone gets on my case about it: Budgets MUST start from the House. Read the Constitution. The President can not spend. Period. Only the House can. And, right now, the House is controlled by which party? Meaning: which party can balance the budget?
How many budgets have passed out of the House and not been taken up by the Senate? I know of one or two.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 42): The Democratic chair of the intelligence committee did not launch full-scale investigations into how 9/11 could have been prevented, did he? The Democratic chair of the intelligence committee did not set out to make Bush II look like he didn't know what he was doing and bring him down, did he?
Would have been an empty hole or would have uncovered a lot more than he wanted to uncover. Like how Jamie Gorelick set up a wall to prevent information from passing between intelligence organs and law enforcement agencies. Just speculating here. (Hmmm, looked her up and found she was involved with Fannie Mae.)
Let me remind everyone:
Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Killed by terrorists in a a premeditated attack. The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
You really think this is false outrage? Again, if you think this should just be swept under the rug because its just a political ploy, you're deluding yourself.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 43, posted (6 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3018 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29): Our sovereignty was violated that day also. Executing a rescue mission to our consulate may or may not have been frowned upon by the legitimate government of Libya. They had recognized and accepted our ambassador's credentials, hadn't they?
Also the President of Libya warned the US of an imminent attack 2 days before the bloodshed happened so it would be just a big of an embarrasment for him that he's got terrorist gangs running around.
Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Killed by terrorists in a a premeditated attack. The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
That's the BIG LIE
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42):
How many budgets have passed out of the House and not been taken up by the Senate? I know of one or two.
Harry Reid has yet to pass a budget during Obama's pResidency.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Darksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 980 posts, RR: 1 Reply 44, posted (6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2998 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 43): The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
But that's not actually true. Since the 2nd debate, that's actually been debunked a few times now. They were indeed a bit hesitant to call it a specific action, yes, but it was labeled (FWIW) an "act of terror" the day of. In any case, as has been mentioned above, we really don't want folks (especially the President) shooting from the hip on this one.
And as another point of fact, on 9/11, Bush did call that an "act of terror" as well. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us how long it was before that one was resolved?
I don't see how getting stirred up and overreacting is going to solve a matter (especially something as murky as current Lybian politics, no less). This is a situation that may indeed require action at some point, but I'm not seeing how getting all riled up, and potentially taking the fight to the wrong people on this one will solve a damned thing. I'm with Condi on this one.
Posting without Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11362 posts, RR: 50 Reply 45, posted (6 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2966 times:
Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 44): This is a situation that may indeed require action at some point, but I'm not seeing how getting all riled up, and potentially taking the fight to the wrong people on this one will solve a damned thing. I'm with Condi on this one.
Are they getting riled up because there's an agenda? No, that couldn't possibly be the reason, could it?
BN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5289 posts, RR: 52 Reply 47, posted (6 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2944 times:
I'm guessing no one on this board has been in a 'Embassy under siege' event...so at lot of this 'we shoulda' .. we coulda, he knew this, they knew that..' is a bunch horse hockey.
Seeing Affleck's film Argo, makes that abundantly clear! You never get the whole story no matter what.
What was insightful about the film was the Iranians inside embassy applying for visas when the place was stormed. All these years I've never heard word about that perspective. Now perhaps most were Shah loyalists and had every reason to attempt to get out quickly but still, it was one of many things in a very murky situation. Not to spoil the film for any potential viewers..but the film brought back many feelings I had a young person watching this... this was a making of the Iranians doing.
In other words. the numerous number of frustrated angry young Persians today need only to look at their parents for the state of their nation today. That uprising put 'the power of the people' into their very hands...
..and the parents of today's kids thought a crotchety senile old religious fanatic was the way to go...and made it so. Unfortunately, I'm certain that part is entirely omitted from their history books.
But the film does a GREAT of conveying the abject horror of being caught up in a situation like that and how to proceed when no text book guide exist.
And then again the film blows it when police jeeps and cars outrun a 747 barreling down a runway... huge fail!
BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 48, posted (6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 43): denied that it was a terrorist attack
That is a big stretch of the definition of terrorism.
You act like the administration is hiding something that, if known (as it is known by specially informed people like yourself), would change the election. It wouldn't. People already know what happened. You assume everyone in the middle and on the left reacts with as much outrage as you and the Right, reacting to Benghazi with: "Its terrorism! America insulted! Savage Muslims! I am scared of terrorists! Send in the drone attack!"...but only the Right reacts this way.
The terrorismterm is not precisely defined, but usually means attacking civilians and with an intention to scare or terrorise the general civilian population. Attacking government installations is automatically more like an act of war than terrorism, especially when defended by armed or miliatary personnel.
The Right wants an expansive definition of terrorism, in part because of a belief in the desirability of aggressive response, in part because they see a bigger threat from Muslims than the left does, in part because Israelis always want to heighten the fear of teerorism in the eyes of Americans, and in part because they suffer bigger ego damage when America is insulted versus the left.
It's not such a conspiracy - its that the left doesn't define terrorism as broadly as you do, and they do not see Muslims and the Middle East as the threat you do.
n318ea From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 49, posted (6 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
It is ironic that President Obama & Company could tell what underwear the Seal Team 6 members where wearing in real time when Bin Laden was killed. How is it now six weeks after the slaughter of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and former SEALS Glen Doherty and Ty Woods, no one knows anything? It's being investigated??? BULL$HIT!. This is not a left- right or FOX News story. This is a question of whether the POTUS lied to this nation and left those men in a fight for their lives for 7 hours in DID NOTHING. The evidence from the State Department on TV during the House hearings ( I know, Reps. Chaffetz and Issa are right wing liars right?) showed THEY NEW in real time what was happening yet Obama lied for the next 2 weeks about the film instead of an Al Quaeda attack.
No,I don't get my news from FOX, too many fruitcake Liberals on there now. They do seem to be the only ones investigating what happened. Obama ignored the question when someone finally had the cojones to ask him if support was denied yesterday. This needs to be answered before November 6th. The men and women risking their lives for this country deserve better. WE deserve better.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 51, posted (6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29): As time goes on, the truth will come out. It always does.
And until then, conspiracy theorists will only accept as true what they want to be the truth. If their truth does not materialize today, they'll simply tell the world that the world is wrong, and that the real truth, the truth that only they know, will be exposed soon enough, and they'll be vindicated. They buy their truths on credit.
You are counting your chickens before they hatched.
Quoting n318ea (Reply 49): No,I don't get my news from FOX, too many fruitcake Liberals on there now.
So you are admitting that you will only accept news from the most biased sources you can find? The sources that will support whatever theory you already have formed?
That's not good for your own well-being.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35): What is the lie? Being vague and not shooting from the hip?
Delta, a "lie" (in this context) is anything that is said by a politician that one doesn't like. Said "lie" is then used as the declared reason that one doesn't like this politician. It's all very circular.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42): You really think this is false outrage?
Yes, it is. When people have to be told that they should be outraged, it is false outrage.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 40): Perhaps you overlooked the fact that the Daily Mail story cited CBS News as the source.
Yes. They also misquoted CBS. Colonel Wood was not talking about "rescuing" Stevens at all. The Daily Mail misleads its readers.
mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3001 posts, RR: 3 Reply 52, posted (6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2837 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 36): There are forces that the US is working with to establish the Government. You forget why these Americans were there to being with.
That fact only disproves your whining about "sovereignty" and a totally irrelevant analogy about the Chinese in Washington.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 53, posted (6 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2833 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42): The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack
Except he did call it a terrorist attack. Not in the way the right-wing wants him to call it a terrorist attack, but he called it a terrorist attack.
Just like the lie about the "apology tour" he supposedly went on. No where and at no time did he ever apologize for being America. Reaching out to those who thought we done them wrong is not the same thing as being submissive to them.
Besides, what's wrong with saying "yeah, we messed up"? It takes a bigger man to admit his mistakes than to police the world with force.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 42): How many budgets have passed out of the House and not been taken up by the Senate?
Yes. How many? How many budgets were proposed by Democrats but never made it out of commitee in the House just because right-wingers voted it dead in commitee?
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 55, posted (6 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
Quoting jakeorion (Reply 31): Say what you want about everything else, but I believe this should be the key point. The fact the administration lied about it and nobody cares.
Didn't realize that you had direct links to the CIA and White House.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33): And, classy of you to bring up race.
Check another thread and you'll find that racism isn't anything new. It's been a hard 4 years since Obama was elected and we're too close to an election for the right to let things be taken care of in a normal manner.
Quoting n318ea (Reply 49): How is it now six weeks after the slaughter of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and former SEALS Glen Doherty and Ty Woods, no one knows anything?
Ambassadors do not wear the advanced communications gear that Seal Team 6 does.
We also have senior people leading investigations. General/Director Petraeus is one. Director of the CIA, but a impressive American highly respected by Republicans. Actually he was given some pretty impressive assignments by Bush/Cheney. The more you attack the President the more you are attacking General Petraeus.
By the way, not only does a full investigation ned to identify who made the decision not to send in support, but all the reasons WHY they acted that way. What were their resources and how many were held in reserve? Actually, was there a reserve and was there budgeting available?
We also need to know if overall funding for State Department security has been cut and, if so, we need to know the names of the politicians who voted to make that cut.
Let's get the entire picture out - right now it is simply election attacks against Obama with very thin legs.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 56, posted (6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2801 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 43): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
what's the big "lie?"
Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Killed by terrorists in a a premeditated attack. The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
That's the BIG LIE
Yeah, so basically facts were murky in the beginning and they weren't sure the extent of Al-Qaeda's connection in the event so they didn't jump to conclusions... and who said the YouTube video had nothing to do with it? I believed these events would've happened anyway, but many demonstrations will use excuses (such as the YouTube clip) to rally people and rile them up. If it hadn't been this YouTube clip it would've been something else.
What is really making me super skeptical about all this is how the GOP went on full fledged attack mode on the President instantly constantly barraging him with different complaints until they settled with this "lying" incident which stuck the best. The way they systematically attacked him was so low and so partisan, they could have used the same tactics to villianify the Second Coming of Jesus as President solving world hunger and achieving world peace. No matter what the President does it constantly comes under attack. I know he's far from perfect, but the point is he isn't perfect and doesn't have a crystal ball to make the 100% best decision 100% of the time
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2791 times:
So far no one has yet demonstrated any "lie" that couldn't just be attempting to parse the sequence of events as more facts became known. Or if they have, it's been "Obama didn't call it terrorism" which is both false and ultimately meaningless. He mentioned "acts of terror" and bringing the responsible parties to justice something like 12 hours after the attack- what more do you want? Isn't that the correct course of action?
WRT the youtube video: at the time, it was impossible to simply disregard it. It had just gone viral and was sparking demonstrations in several countries. While we now know there was more to the Benghazi attack then that, pretending that this outpouring of emotion across the Muslim world couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the attack, given what was known in the immediate aftermath, is just as fallacious as what everyone is accusing- that the government was using that narrative to explain the whole thing away.
WRT whatever elements may or may not have been committed to the fight- gunships, CIA operatives, what have you: so far any evidence of their capability to intervene is poorly reported and as such poorly understood. We don't know what additional American military/intelligence assets would have been able to accomplish. And besides, everyone is trying to pin this on the President; I find it unlikely that he would have sufficient knowledge of the situation as it was unfolding to be able to commit forces as large as the reported AC-130 gunship from the OP. But we don't know that at this time. So really, the other line of attack, that Obama was just sitting on his hands, is nothing more than conspiracy theory right now.
In closing, whatever the truth of the matter this sounds like the right-wing trying to find a good situation to reconstruct the Democrats-are-soft-on-terror narrative. That's why they're so worried about the Al Qaeda and State Department youtube video response angles, because they are the most conducive to that. State Department security procedures, embassy construction and rules that force diplomats to choose between diplomatic interaction and personal security, and other important related topics aren't getting nearly as much play.
That's another good point, do you know how well an AC-130 gunship would stop individuals from killing the ambassador? Extremely well! Except it would kill the ambassador and about 200 civilians in the process. Even the predator drones would wipe out way too many people/the ambassador. It's not like they shoot single bullets with 100% accuracy and no collateral damage
I have a colleague who is a former Navy Seal officer and he wrote this when I asked him about the chain of command in this situation.
"This type of rescue mission is called a "NEO" operation, for Non-combatant Evacuation Operation. Every embassy and consulate has and practices all kinds of emergency evac plans, in concert with the US military.
For example, Marines and SEALs practice NEO ops prior to deploying on every float, as a VERY high priority mission. They involve full dress-rehearsals, with civilian role players, helos, landing craft, rounding up stranded stragglers, opfor ambushes, role-playing "angry mobs," fighting your way to LZs or even beaches while protecting a gaggle of civilians down to babies etc. Conducting successful NEO ops is a TOP TOP TOP military and state department mission priority. I cannot emphasize this enough. NEO ops are planned and practiced over and over and over.
When the alarm goes off worldwide that an embassy or consulate is being attacked, the entire U.S. military swings into rescue mode, without waiting for any orders from the White House. The military does all of the operational planning and begins to execute the rescue op.
The one thing they CAN'T do is cross an international border without permission from POTUS. So the US Military will be inbound full-steam-ahead to make the rescue, and all they need from POTUS is a "proceed" order. In this case, they got a "stand down" instead.
This is at the POTUS level, it is not a decision taken at State. State and the military (JCS) should be in the Situation Room with POTUS soon after a critical incident like this begins, so all decisions can be made in real time. (I have heard nowhere that POTUS went into the Situation Room at all. Apparently he went to the Oval Office briefly, but not down to the Situation Room, where the "war planning" screens, full staffs and commo tools are all located for dealing with a major crisis.)
But if POTUS punts after a brief Oval Office meeting with Dempsey and Hillary and goes upstairs to the family quarters....the stranded Americans will die.
Only POTUS can give the order to cross international borders. Only POTUS can allow US warplanes to give air support to Americans battling on the ground in a foreign country. If POTUS makes himself unavailable, the Americans will die.
Even the VEEP or Secretary of State cannot make that call. The VEEP can only do it if the POTUS is determined to be medically unable to perform his functions. If the POTUS goes upstairs and turns off his phone, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Nothing. And the besieged Americans will die.
But what we really need now is for a high-ranking officer with insider knowledge to go public, risk his pension and career, and tell the truth.
The blame for this humiliating and shameful national disgrace is pointing directly at the POTUS, and America needs to know why the inbound rescue operation was aborted. "
There was more that I am not privy to share but Americans died while Obama went to bed plain and simple. He has blood on his hands.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 58): That's another good point, do you know how well an AC-130 gunship would stop individuals from killing the ambassador? Extremely well! Except it would kill the ambassador and about 200 civilians in the process. Even the predator drones would wipe out way too many people/the ambassador. It's not like they shoot single bullets with 100% accuracy and no collateral damage
You see, this is the thing. I'm not personally familiar with the precision capabilities of the AC-130 or the Predator or whatever else is alleged to have been out there, but I do know that in a situation like Benghazi where there was a great deal of unrest that had no murderous intent against the ambassador or, was simply outright peaceful protest, you've have to know exactly what was going on and exactly how much damage you'd do with what was around. I don't think the President knew that; I don't think anybody knew that, and ordering escalation without that knowledge would probably have been disastrous both for actual human life on the ground (we still care about that, right?) and our general standing with the Libyans. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong in the future, but until we know better it is as I said; little more than conspiracy theory.
(I love this cop-speak miliatry fans use. Using the acronym POTUS = 90% chance you're Republican)
Do you think the president maybe has more information than a "former navy seal?"
.
Every US ambassador in the world could drop dead tomorrow and it would EFFECT NOTHING about America. Can you explain why, exactly you think this incident is so important?
Peaceful protestors don't show up with AK47s and RPGs in the middle of the night.
Actually lots of protests in the Middle East involve citizens with weapons. AKs are more available over there than guns are over here in America. Plus, I'm sure plenty of Americans show up at protests with weapons (for protection or part of a "militia.") Should we blast them away when they show up? Should the President order the blasting away of foreigners whenever they should up with weapons? Even our troops overseas can't just shoot people that are armed
So what are you saying? The President knew of these attacks and just chose for these Americans to die? Look there are things the President does that I disagree with, but I don't for a second think he's ever malicious enough to let Americans die for ___insert whatever he'd accomplish here___. I mean, what would be the point? Honestly? I think that if the GOP stopped criticizing the President for every tiny little thing he does and focused on getting a plan together, they'd win by a landslide. Their constant politicizing of everything and with crazy conspiracy theories going around just pisses off swing voters, convince no democrats to change sides, and just makes their base look even more extreme. Just saying
n318ea From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 51): So you are admitting that you will only accept news from the most biased sources you can find? The sources that will support whatever theory you already have formed?[/quote
I admitted nothing, I said too many fruit cake liberals on FOX. I get my NEWS elsewhere. If you had ever actually watched FOX you would know what I'm talking about.
[quote=Pu,reply=50]Why is that?
Haven't you already decided to vote for Romney?
Who I vote for has nothing to do that the POTUS may have lied to the Country.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 54): Wait, you seriously think Fox news is too liberal?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 65, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2730 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59): There was more that I am not privy to share
Wait, so your friend who is amazingly an ex-SEAL, knows everything, and spills all this stuff to you, allows it to be posted on the internet, and then holds back the juicy stuff?
You have to understand why people might disregard this post of yours.
Quoting Pu (Reply 62): Do you think the president maybe has more information than a "former navy seal?"
Quoting n318ea (Reply 64): I admitted nothing, I said too many fruit cake liberals on FOX. I get my NEWS elsewhere.
Yes you did. You admitted that you don't watch Fox because it has liberals on it. Then you said you get your news from somewhere else, which you have now reiterated. Therefore, logic says you get your news from a source that has as close to zero liberal input as possible.
I'm sorry, but anyone who only listens to the "news" they want to hear is inherently uninformed. You've subjected yourself to only getting confirmation of whatever you already thought. That's not good for your well-being.
Quoting n318ea (Reply 64): If you had ever actually watched FOX you would know what I'm talking about.
I don't watch much television, because I feel I can become better informed by reading a report. I get my news from many sources, domestic and international, including many sources (such as the WSJ) with a substantial right wing slant. I expose myself to more sources than will just confirm my beliefs because, unlike some, I want and need to know if I'm wrong much more than I need to know that I'm right.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19715 posts, RR: 56 Reply 66, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
Quoting n318ea (Reply 49): It is ironic that President Obama & Company could tell what underwear the Seal Team 6 members where wearing in real time when Bin Laden was killed. How is it now six weeks after the slaughter of Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith and former SEALS Glen Doherty and Ty Woods, no one knows anything?
Because there's a difference between keeping track of a the events and people involved in a mission that you priginate and control and keeping track of those same events and people in the case of action by external elements that you don't control.
That should be simple logic.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 67, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63): Actually lots of protests in the Middle East involve citizens with weapons.
I was in Tunisia when the Arab Spring began and got caught in several protests and I saw no firearms carried by protestors. Only the police had them.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63): So what are you saying? The President knew of these attacks and just chose for these Americans to die?
The reports are that he went to bed after learning of the attack and it continued another 7 hours. Until we know differently that's where I stand. Coincidently, a Rear Admiral, a 4* General and the Vice Commandant of the USMC are being removed possibly over this tradgedy.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 68, posted (6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2714 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 67): The reports are that he went to bed after learning of the attack and it continued another 7 hours.
1. What reports, please.
2. Even if he went to bed, this is important why?
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 67):
Until we know differently that's where I stand
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? You don't like Obama, we get it, but keep up the balanced reputation you're making for yourself, it only helps everyone see things more clearly.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2703 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59): In this case, they got a "stand down" instead.
If he's a former officer, I don't see how he could possibly know this.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 61): Peaceful protestors don't show up with AK47s and RPGs in the middle of the night.
The attack was coincident with wider developments regarding an offensive video, and people were protesting about it. Some of them were peaceful, some of them weren't, that I am fully willing to admit. The point is, you'd have to know to a high degree of precision who was actually attacking the embassy and who was just rioting or demonstrating and if the latter got hit we'd be 1. killing bystanders. 2. giving fuel to a narrative about American disregard toward Muslim well-being at precisely the wrong time. 3. violating the sovereignty of the Libyan government. These are important facts to consider before plunging in with heavy arms fire when the nature of the situation is still fluid.
Furthermore, the only claim in the Fox article with a name attached to it regards a single "small team" which could be as few as three or four people and is directly contradicted by the CIA themselves; every other asset the article claims could be mobilized is only backed up by "Fox sources report." As such there's no context for the AC-130 or the drones; no one says why they might or might not have been committed, or by whom, so everyone is just jumping to the "obvious" conclusion that President Obama is conspiring with the media to hide his willingness to let his own embassy staff be killed (disregarding several delays in response that he couldn't have had anything to do with, by Fox News' own admission.)
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 70, posted (6 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2669 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 67): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
Actually lots of protests in the Middle East involve citizens with weapons.
I was in Tunisia when the Arab Spring began and got caught in several protests and I saw no firearms carried by protestors. Only the police had them.
And Tunisia is not the only Middle Eastern county. Weapons are very common over there. Regardless, what do you think the President should have done? Shoot any crowd with weapons? Evacuate embassies every time a crowd with weapons show up? In either of those cases, you can see how that really wouldn't work.
I'm not even exonerating the administration out of guilt... I don't think anything wrong happened and I think it's a forced issue but hey, I could be wrong. What is making me mad is how everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and declaring the President is guilty of every little detail that is released. The "lies" I see are vague "we aren't sure what happened yet" statements (even if they knew a bit more than we did at the time, details were still blurry) and the things the administration should have done differently are things you'd need a crystal ball to predict.
Every part of this issue has been pushed up. We are hearing now that the video has "nothing to do with this" but that didn't stop the GOP pundits from criticizing him for being too "weak" and "not defending free speech by saying this video is disgusting."
Can you at least see why many aren't taking this issue seriously? It has been super hyped most of the way so if there really is a big blunder on the President's part, no one is listening because they already got annoyed away from the issue
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 71, posted (6 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2648 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59): Here's the interview reported by ABC from a local NBC affiliate.
I found the last paragraph of the story interesting:
"CIA spokesperson Jennifer Youngblood said, “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
Cue the chorus of "but they are all under Obama's command and were told XYZ!!"
I'm not sure why some of you seem to think this aircraft would destroy the entire country with a single round. They have state of the art avionics and weapons systems, and at least three different armaments, including a 25mm Gatling cannon. It seems reasonable to me that using the 130U wouldn't have caused massive collateral damage as some here think.
We will know the whole truth about this incident soon. And it may very well be the case that nothing could've been done.
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 74, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2603 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 62): Every US ambassador in the world could drop dead tomorrow and it would EFFECT NOTHING about America. Can you explain why, exactly you think this incident is so important?
Because Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Killed by terrorists in a a premeditated attack. The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
And it was all a BIG LIE.
That's why this incident is so important.
I can repeatedly explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 76, posted (6 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74): The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack
Except the following two days when he did call it a terrorist attack. But, to you on the right "Act of Terror" is not even close to "terrorist act" and, in fact, mean completely opposite of each other.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74): claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
When the right would not accept that it was an act of terror and demanded it be pinned on something before the facts could be researched and fact checked.
BTW, a secretary at Camp Pendleton is out of pens. FIRE OBAMA!! He screwed up because he let the pen supply run out for a secretary at Camp Pendleton!! It's Pen-Gate!!
Let me be clear: An ambassador being murdered in an act of terror is far, far worse and far more tragic than running out of pens. But, I am trying to make a point: Because something bad happens does not mean Obama is the only one to blame.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 77, posted (6 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74): Because Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead
Along with ~2000 other Americans murdered since then. Why is his death so important to you?
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
Why is this so importanat to you? A few people killed thousands of miles away in a nation fast becoming an American ally looks more like growing pains for a new democracy to me, not somethng to sound the "terrorism alert" alarm about.
.
. "Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12."
...because if its the use (or not) of the terrorism term, how can this possibly matter?
Plus, its hard to see how this qualifies as terrorism: an attack on a government installation, defended by armed government personnel, with no ability to hurt or instill fear onto the general public...is pretty far from all but the most expansive definitions of terrorism. Or is all violence terrorism these days?
1. The Right is deeply affcted by ego-deflating assaults against America and long for retaliation, either miliatry or verbal, even in cases where doing so will make things worse for America. (as in Libya)
2. The Left couldn't rank terrorism as a priority any less than they already do and avoid using the label except for overt acts against public targets.
3. The Right imagines former Obama voters and swing voters think as they do and get absolutely unnerved at the slightest thought of foreigners insulting America and is dearly hoping this can be used to affect the election since Obama prefers to do nothing very public about it. A public reaction being what the Right wants, correct, whether or not that actually furthers America's interests?
.
.
I can't magine many things less determinative to America's future than the random acts of violence by a few angry Libyans. No part of America's future was or ever willl be decided by Libya or how America is (or is not) reacting to angry Libyans.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 78, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2545 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 77): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):Because Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead
Along with ~2000 other Americans murdered since then. Why is his death so important to you?
You're joking, right?
Quoting Pu (Reply 77): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
Why is this so importanat to you?
Why is it seemingly unimportant to you?
Quoting Pu (Reply 77): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):but I can't understand it for you
Oh, I understand it quite well.
Clearly, you don't.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 79, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2538 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 76): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74): The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack
Except the following two days when he did call it a terrorist attack.
Then afterwards, why did he trot out UN Ambassador Rice to FIVE morning talk shows to specifically claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism, but a spontaneous reaction to a video?
Why did he have the White House Press Secretary repeatedly claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism, but a spontaneous reaction to a video?
Were they both just being insubordinate and defying the President?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 80, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2536 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78): Why is it seemingly unimportant to you?
Because some people have their own set of priorities about what events are worth making political judgments about? I'm not going to say anything about importance per se but trying to codify a narrative about how scary and bad terrorists are and how scary and bad President Obama is for... whatever he did wrong in this scenario is carrying on a tradition that I don't really care for at all. Especially since the unstated implication always revolves around the four Americans who are dead and what more we should have done about it rather than the country to whom it's actually likely to have more material relevance, where the murders actually took place.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 81, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2535 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 79):
Then afterwards, why did he trot out UN Ambassador Rice to FIVE morning talk shows to specifically claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism, but a spontaneous reaction to a video?
Why did he have the White House Press Secretary repeatedly claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism, but a spontaneous reaction to a video?
Were they both just being insubordinate and defying the President?
Maybe first you can establish why the semantics of who called it terrorism when are actually important? I always figured on "act of terror" and an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice to be the important bit. But I guess that would imply that language is a tool of understanding rather than obfuscation and we're way, way past that stage.
Not at all. An ambassador died. No one would be talking aout it except that Fox has made it their headline for a month straight. American People die all the time by violence...about 50 a day in fact.
Th Ambassador's death affects America how? 2000 other Americans died at home since then. Why are you concerned about the ambassador so much?
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78): Why is it seemingly unimportant to you?
Because I'm judging the event on how it affects America. Not the emotional reaction it causes. What IS important about this?
I understand the Right: angry Muslims in the Middle East are a big threat to America and Libya is one more outrage to be upset about.
I understand the left: angry Muslims in the Middle East aren't much of a threat against America and the events of Libya coudn't be less important to the future of America.
Hope you will explain how you think this understanding is wrong.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 83, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78): Quoting Pu (Reply 77):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):Because Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead
Along with ~2000 other Americans murdered since then. Why is his death so important to you?
You're joking, right?
He means that instead of focusing so much on this issue we could be working on cleaning up the streets. He's got a point, though I can see the outrage over the 4 Americans dying (in addition to our crime rate)
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78): Quoting Pu (Reply 77):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
The Obama Administration had steadfastly denied that it was a terrorist attack and claimed that it was a spontaneous demonstration related to a snippet on YouTube.
Why is this so importanat to you?
Why is it seemingly unimportant to you?
Nothing was really concrete, if anything, they were being overly cautious and vague. Plus, wouldn't a spontaneous attack over a YouTube video be terrorism anyway? I see this all being a forced issue, a war of words and coulda/woulda/shoulda.
With that said, I can see the calls for an investigation, though I don't think we should be assuming/assigning guilt like many have done already. Kinda reminds me of the Fast and Furious case... legitimate concern but it was grossly politicized and the main objective was not to get solve the murder of the border patrol agent (or the ambassador in the Libya incident) it was to make the President's administration look bad
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2528 times:
I agree that it should be investigated, but people seem to be focusing on the wrong things in calling for it, mostly the narrative building Al Qaeda and Youtube stuff. IMO embassy security policy needs a more general look as apparently sometimes the security is so tight that the diplomats have a hard time doing their job correctly and other times as here it's quite obviously too lax.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 85, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2526 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 79):
UN Ambassador Rice to FIVE morning talk shows to specifically claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism,
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 79): White House Press Secretary repeatedly claim it WASN'T an act of terrorism
Why is it so incredibly important to you that one person calls it terrorism and another doesn't? Does this in any way change the FACTS of what happened or what the best response should be? Or is usng the "terrorism" label the most important part of a good response to you?
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 86, posted (6 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2522 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 80): Because some people have their own set of priorities about what events are worth making political judgments about
All Europeans are communist subversives who root for the terrorists and have no appreciation for America's role as global defender of freedom, but I do try to see both sides of the political spectrum even from the shivering land of miserable socialism where I reside. I think the Right honestly believes their values and priorities on this Libya matter are in fact virtually everyone's priorities, they act like you say "terrorism" and the discussion is now closed.
The Republicans seem to think it will pick up votes since everyone certainly identifies terrorism like they do, fears it as much, and ranks it as highly....but IMO the terrorism disciples are already voting Romney anyway...Obama's appeal is to those who think America has other higher priorities. IMO.
I think the Republicans will pick up more votes if they don't try to conjure the ghost of Dick Cheney and start seeing terrorists behind every bush....for instance they could show more details about how taxes will be lower, spending less, and the deficit will fall. Libya????
Part of their outrage is that not everyone else is outraged, e.g., others have different priorities.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 88, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 82): An ambassador died. No one would be talking aout it except that Fox has made it their headline for a month straight.
And it's disgraceful that only Fox is talking about it.
Quoting Pu (Reply 82): Th Ambassador's death affects America how?
How would it affect your country if your Ambassador to the United States were gunned down by thugs while in the United States?
Quoting Pu (Reply 82): Why are you concerned about the ambassador so much?
Don't you think someone should be? Seems not enough people publicly seem to care.
Quoting Pu (Reply 82): 2000 other Americans died at home since then.
And I find that abhorrent as well, but you're making the point for me; they died AT HOME.
The President of the United States cannot ensure the safety and well being of every citizen in our nation, but he damn sure can and should ensure the safety and well being of our diplomats abroad.
Here's what you don't seem to understand; the current Administration substantially downplayed the murder of these four Americans, apparently because it didn't fit their narrative; that al Qaeda was substantially weakened due to their efforts. That terrorism was decreasing due to their efforts. That our people need not fear acts of terrorism as much because of their efforts.
And the acts of 9/11/12 were a dose of reality that undermined that message the current Administration was trying to cultivate, because it was literally the ONLY thing they could hang their collective hats on for this election cycle.
Now it's gone.
The President forcefully and shamelessly admonished Governor Romney for "playing politics" with the death of these citizens, while he did PRECISELY THAT HIMSELF.
Now do you get it?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Why in that long response did you not answer this question:
Quoting Pu (Reply 85): Why is it so incredibly important to you that one person calls it terrorism and another doesn't? Does this in any way change the FACTS of what happened or what the best response should be? Or is usng the "terrorism" label the most important part of a good response to you?
WHY IS THE "Terrorism" label so important to you?
That seems like an extremely important point, and a good answer to that question would go very far in supporting your argument. Failing to answer it undermines your argument.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 90, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 88): Here's what you don't seem to understand; the current Administration substantially downplayed the murder of these four Americans, apparently because it didn't fit their narrative; that al Qaeda was substantially weakened due to their efforts. That terrorism was decreasing due to their efforts. That our people need not fear acts of terrorism as much because of their efforts.
Al Qaeda IS weaker. Most of their chain of command is dead or captured; they went from causing 9/11, bombing subways and trains in Europe, attempting a large attack on American aircraft frequently, etc to now where all they can do is kill 4 Americans and a major attack on our soil has not been attempted in a while (or made it to the stage where we find out about it, aka, very close to succeeding.)
Look, it's not that we don't care about Chris' death, it's that we don't think the actions that transpired in the days following is some big cover up. We don't see a huge lie, we see vagueness in the face of uncertainty. We see a president that admittedly makes mistakes and didn't make the 100% right action. We see a situation that would have been the same if a Republican president was in office.
You are free to think what you want about it, but it is false to say we don't care or the media is covering something up. Call FOX looking for the truth, I call it FOX looking to make this political and make the President look bad. Just an opinion from someone who is right-leaning...
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 91, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2422 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 88): How would it affect your country if your Ambassador to the United States were gunned down by thugs while in the United States?
I would think its part of the normal climate of gun murders in the USA and not particularly significant.
About 3000 American civilians have been killed by Muslim terrorists since the beginning of time and not very many since September 11, 2001. About 200,000 Americans were killed by other Americans on the streets of America since September 12, 2001. Which is the bigger threat, "al-Qaeda" or Americans themselves? Planning on spending time in Benghazi are you?
I Don't see any evidence this Benghazi event represents a dangerous threat to Americans ANY WORSE THAN A TYPICAL WALK THROUGH AN AMERICAN CITY MIGHT. Why so focused on fixing Benghazi instead of Detroit?
It seems any rational person would be less concerned with fixing a young democracy like Libya and instead focus all their energy on fixing the country with much bigger potential, the United States itself.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 92, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2419 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 88): it's disgraceful that only Fox is talking about it.
Actually, no. The left is talking about it to in the sense that they are trying to figure out why FOX is making that big of a deal over it. Again: the left is not saying "this is a non-event" but rather: "this act of terror is horrible, but not so horrible as to droan on a bout it for six weeks".
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 79): Were they both just being insubordinate and defying the President?
Or putting an explination out because an explination was being DEMANDED from the far right. The far right did not want to wait until a full investigation was complete. They want a reason and they want it now. But, that explination is not good enough because it does not fit their narrative that Obama is the anti-Christ and we all should hate Obama as much as they do.
Funny thing: FOX and the far right wing media (Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et al.) were never ever this outraged over the murder of American service men and women. Our troops are still being murdered every day in Afganistan but not one peep is heard out of the right over the tragedy in that. All we ever hear is "Obama is evil for allowing the Bengazi attack to happen! We hate him and you should too!" That's all we ever hear. Nothing about any dead troops except when the car bomb took out an exceptional number of people and, oh by the way, one of our soldiers was killed there too.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 93, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 69): The attack was coincident with wider developments regarding an offensive video,
And you still believe that lie?
Quoting seb146 (Reply 71): no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.
Parse----they just ignored it.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 88): The President of the United States cannot ensure the safety and well being of every citizen in our nation, but he damn sure can and should ensure the safety and well being of our diplomats abroad.
...and there are reports that security was intentionally drawn down 2 weeks before the attack, thus leaving everything exposed.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 94, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2343 times:
Why do some people insist on believing Fox News to the exclusion of literally *everyone* else?
Why do you believe them when you already know they are agendized?
A: because they fit your agenda.
In fact, the more Fox News is out by itself, the more these people believe they have found confirmation that they are right, and everyone else is part of the cover-up.
What a fantastic illustration of Right v. Left thinking and priorities...... Mali !
.
.
.
Challenging the US president's claim that the "al-Qaeda threat" to America is diminshed because there is still a threatto the most important country on earth for Americans: Mali (!!!!) ;....Maybe some people (aka the Left) think that Mali is more responsible for Mali than the US president?
.
.
.
Does it seem so unpatriotic that whatever is going on in far-off African countries like Libya and Mali is not as important to many Americans as, uhmmm healthcare, education or the economy??
.
.
.
The "al-Qaeda" threat could enter America anytime through its numerous pourous borders or by grabbing a Turkish passport and dancing in through JFK. A rented van and fertilizer does the rest, Oklahoma City style. Bush and Obama have obviously maimed both the desire and capability of "al-Qaeda" to harm America, otherwise the nation would be reeling from terrorism for years on end.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 96, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 93): Quoting Newark727 (Reply 69):
The attack was coincident with wider developments regarding an offensive video,
And you still believe that lie?
Um yeah, the video was used as a justification. The attacks most likely would've happened without the video. Just like when terrorists kidnap an American and say they'll behead him if America doesn't release ___insert al Qaeda leader here___. If that al Qaeda leader hadn't been captured, they just would've used something else as an excuse to behead the American. If you follow where I'm going with that
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 93): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
Al Qaeda IS weaker.
Tell that to the Malians where they have severed their country in half.
OK: Mali, al Qaeda is weaker. I never said they still can't cause trouble and cause great harm locally, but as a whole, al Qaeda is weaker. Since 9/11, they've gotten less frequent with their attacks against America and their killings seem to happen more and more over there, not over here.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2302 times:
The attacks happened at the same time protests began breaking out all over the Muslim world, mostly regarding the video. I'm not implying causation, I'm saying that it would be stupid not to consider it when not every fact was known immediately during and after after the embassy attacks, especially regarding the use of additional force. Did you even read any of my other posts? Heck, did you even read the rest of the post you were quoting?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 98, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2299 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 97): The attacks happened at the same time protests began breaking out all over the Muslim world, mostly regarding the video. I'm not implying causation, I'm saying that it would be stupid not to consider it when not every fact was known immediately during and after after the embassy attacks, especially regarding the use of additional force.
Exactly. At the very minimum, it provided excellent cover for the attack.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 99, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 85): WHY IS THE "Terrorism" label so important to you?
Because Obama doesn't want to use it to describe the jihadists in the BEN attack. If he did Americans would assume he failed in his duties. America caused this attack (aka the video) so therefore he's not responsible.
Quoting Pu (Reply 95): Does it seem so unpatriotic that whatever is going on in far-off African countries like Libya and Mali is not as important to many Americans as, uhmmm healthcare, education or the economy??
Good for you that Sweden is a neutral country so you don't have to get your hands dirty.
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 97): The attacks happened at the same time protests began breaking out all over the Muslim world,
There were protests only in Pakistan and Egypt 72 hours after the Amb. was dead, so much for simultaneous and spontaneous.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 100, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99): Because Obama doesn't want to use it to describe the jihadists in the BEN attack. If he did Americans would assume he failed in his duties. America caused this attack (aka the video) so therefore he's not responsible.
Isn't "act of terror" close enough to "terrorism?" I swear, this President can do no right to some people
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99): Good for you that Sweden is a neutral country so you don't have to get your hands dirty.
Too bad we can't follow their footsteps... there would be a lot less dead Americans
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99): Quoting Newark727 (Reply 97):
The attacks happened at the same time protests began breaking out all over the Muslim world,
There were protests only in Pakistan and Egypt 72 hours after the Amb. was dead, so much for simultaneous and spontaneous.
I'll give you Pakistan, although protests erupting all over the word within a few days may not be "instantaneous" but it's pretty close. And tell me, what were the protesters in Indonesia protesting? You say the movie has nothing to do with it. What about Pakistan? What was that all about? Jordan? Tunisia? Palestine? Morocco? What were they protesting??!
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2270 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99): There were protests only in Pakistan and Egypt 72 hours after the Amb. was dead, so much for simultaneous and spontaneous.
There was reason to be worried before that, I think the Egyptian embassy actually had a statement about the video before the attacks took place which got conflated into the whole "apologizing" narrative that Romney later picked up on. Also, another fantastic job picking a single sentence out of five or six posts characterizing my position to respond to, rather than, you know, what I actually said.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99):
Because Obama doesn't want to use it to describe the jihadists in the BEN attack. If he did Americans would assume he failed in his duties. America caused this attack (aka the video) so therefore he's not responsible.
Wait what that doesn't even make sense. You already think he's failed in his duties, it's quite clear, regardless of who is calling anything what; he already described it as an act of terror; whether or not the actors are terrorists when something goes wrong shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's a failure on the part of an executive in his policy and if Americans think it is I should probably move. Also, it takes a willful disregard for everything posted in this thread so far to suggest that "the video caused the attack" is still a widely accepted narrative.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99): Good for you that Sweden is a neutral country so you don't have to get your hands dirty.
Who says we have to get our hands dirty? I mean, we have, rather a lot. But the guy's point was that Mali is only a strike against American policy because conservatives say it is, and Al Qaeda's effectiveness at carrying out plots outside areas where it has safe havens of instability and corruption does indeed seem to have gone down in recent years.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 103, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 99):
Because Obama doesn't want to use it to describe the jihadists in the BEN attack. If he did Americans would assume he failed in his duties. America caused this attack (aka the video) so therefore he's not responsible.
Is THIS what the nutbags like Brietbart are saying? Well, thanks for finally explaining why there's such a big hang up about using the word "terrorism".
...and this reasoning is so unquestionably adopted and repeated! Does independent thought ever play a role in figuring out current events or can one only repeat what is on Fox, The Weekly Standard, and so forth?
.
.
.
The problem is that if Obama is choosing his reactions to this event based on political calculations as Fox and the non-mainstream-blogs apparently suggest, he would simply
1. call out a fullblown attack on Benghazi, and
2. authorise a separate attack on Tehran (for sponsoring terrorism), and
3. solemnly announce on TV that America "is under attack" by people who hate freedom
... and thereby ensure re-election by winning not only his own party but also winning a chunk of the electorate who get all goosepimply at the thought of raw American power raining down on helpless civilians who allowed an American ambassador to die.
Obama is a much more skilled political operative than you. Or I. Or most anyone - if Obama wanted political gains from Benghazi, he would already have it.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 104, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 103): ...and this reasoning is so unquestionably adopted and repeated! Does independent thought ever play a role in figuring out current events or can one only repeat what is on Fox, The Weekly Standard, and so forth?
Actually, no.
You'll notice that when big news breaks (especially if it is potentially damning to a Republican), Fox News does not report it until the next day when they can get their talking points coordinated with the mothership.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 106, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105): Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?
Take what you get. Your whole thread started from Fake news. Without waiting for the official investigation.
The attack was over by 8:30 Eastern.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 107, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105): Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 108, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2099 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 107): Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):
Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?
Slate's left wing?
Since when?
Probably about the same time I was left wing (I got implied this in this very thread! LOL)
Mr bjorn14, I know it's impossible to reply to every single question in these forums, but I'm really curious, you seem to be adamant that video had a very limited role. Again, even if the video didn't exist, I think the attack would've still happened (a different reason would have been thought up.) But how do you explain the protests in:
Mr bjorn14, or really, anyone else, if all these countries had protests over the film, how is the President lying, misleading, etc when he mentioned that the attacks happened over the film? Minus the initial confusion (and assuming he's not an all knowing god knowing all the facts at the time) he has changed his mind, knowing that the movie was just a part of the initial attack, and from the very beginning called it "an act of terror" which IDK guys, sounds a lot like "terrorism" to me.
I have no agenda and am not on any "side." I'm looking for answers. If you guys can explain that to me, and I agree that it makes sense, I'll gladly join you in the condemnations. But I've seen nothing so far minus the fact that the President didn't make the optimal choices (no one does 100% of the time) and the whole "lying" thing to me seems far fetched
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 109, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2085 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105): Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?
You may call it nutjob, but this site indicates that the "rescue team" from the airport was at the compound when the morter attack happened.
This is why we need to wait for the official investigation and timeline from the FBI and state departments investiigation. Not gunning it with disjointed reports from unnames sources.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
n318ea From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 135 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
6+ weeks after the murders in Benghazi and the investigation has not been complete? Either this resulted from incredible incompetence or an active coverup of a failure to rescue/protect American's. The failure of the Lame Stream Media to pursue this story and accept the wall of BS from the POTUS demonstrates their bias and fails to look out for the people of this country.. Someone is lying about what happened and IT IS Obama's responsibility. No doubt it will come back to Bush before it's over.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 111, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 112, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Quoting n318ea (Reply 110): 6+ weeks after the murders in Benghazi and the investigation has not been complete? Either this resulted from incredible incompetence or an active coverup of a failure to rescue/protect American's.
Question: what are your credentials for determining this? (And why haven't YOU figured out what happened? )
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 113, posted (6 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Quoting n318ea (Reply 110): 6+ weeks after the murders in Benghazi and the investigation has not been complete?
And if it had been completed in a week, you'd be crying that the investigation wasn't thorough enough and it was an obvious cover-up.
Quoting n318ea (Reply 110): Either this resulted from incredible incompetence or an active coverup of a failure to rescue/protect American's.
Like DLX said, I'd be interested to hear your qualifications to determine just how long an investigation should take.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 113):
Quoting n318ea (Reply 110):
Either this resulted from incredible incompetence or an active coverup of a failure to rescue/protect American's.
Like DLX said, I'd be interested to hear your qualifications to determine just how long an investigation should take.
Wouldn't we all? I think it will be a long wait for a coherent answer.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1894 times:
Adjust the premise until it fits the desired conclusion.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 117, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1891 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 115):
Obama: 'If Somebody Didn”t Do Their Job’ Regarding Benghazi Attack, ‘They’ll be Held Responsible’
So I'll be expecting Obama to tender his resignation soon or maybe the American people will hold him responsible on Nov. 6th.
What job has Obama failed to do?
Please also cite your credentials to make this assessment.
(And what are you going to do if you find out it was Petraeus that dropped the ball? You're so freakin' partisan that you can only accept one thing as true.)
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 118, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 115): Looks like the Obama regime is still trying to keep al-Qaeda on the run in Mali.
That statement right there negates your entire post, Rush.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 119, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1861 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 118): What job has Obama failed to do?
He failed to protect a U.S Ambassador (vis a vis the President himself) when he knew within minutes (and was watching live video or his immediate underlings were) that the consulate was under attack by a 100+ heavily armed combatants. This wasn't some lone assassin who walked up and shot him. This was an organized attack that lasted for 7 hours. He FAILED to act! They had rescue assets less than an hour away at Sicily! Americans can accept tried and failed but they won't accept never trying.
Why were the CIA ops laser painting the terrorists if they didn't think there was going to be help on the way? They knew the protocol for an embassy/consulate attack. But help never came.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 120, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 120): Quoting D L X (Reply 118):
What job has Obama failed to do?
He failed to protect a U.S Ambassador (vis a vis the President himself) when he knew within minutes (and was watching live video or his immediate underlings were) that the consulate was under attack by a 100+ heavily armed combatants. This wasn't some lone assassin who walked up and shot him. This was an organized attack that lasted for 7 hours. He FAILED to act! They had rescue assets less than an hour away at Sicily! Americans can accept tried and failed but they won't accept never trying.
And what credentials qualify you to make that assessment?
I ask because you have made very definitive conclusions, unsupported by public facts, and not merely expressing evidence that supports your opinion.
Further, you avoided answering this: what if it turns out that it was Petraeus that failed? You claim that CIA ops were laser painting the terrorists, well, why don't you blame Petraeus (their chain of command) for a failure? Will you ask for his resignation? (And do you think you deserve it?)
Finally, you say that Obama should lose his job for this. I'm sorry to make this a little personal, but I want to make sure you're not being a hypocrite. So I ask this: did you vote for Bush in 2004 after he didn't stop 9/11?
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7448 posts, RR: 2 Reply 121, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
Obama lives in a ridiculously complicated world. Hundreds of embassies. Hundreds of threats daily. He had no idea this was happening.
It was State bureaucrats' job to assess and staff the post appropriately. The chain of command responsible should be named and shamed.
It is totally inappropriate to try to involve Obama in such low level tactics. He presides over millions of men and women every day... not just one Embassy. It is too small to even get to his desk, ever. Somebody screwed up... it happens. There are solutions. Nothing to do with POTUS though.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 122, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1801 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119): They had rescue assets less than an hour away at Sicily!
I'll use your reference article to refute your claims.
1. Attack began at 9:40 P.M.
2. Woods and 2 others went to the compound after being told to "Stand Down" by higher ups in the compound. Whether or not these orders came from higher up is irrelavent. Woods and at least 2 others went to the consulate from the Annex.
3. Woods and the others returned with the consulate members they evacuated and the body of Smith at Midnight. At this point Smith is dead and presumabley Stevens, his body was missing at this point.
4. 2:00 A.M. The American Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli arrives at the Benghazi airport. It doesn't matter about Sicily. Those troops would have had to be assembled and the QRF was closer.
5. At 3:00 A.M. the AQRF arrived at the Annex allong with the Libyan 17th Brigade. Military vehicles with 50 Cal guns were present according ot the artivle
6. At 4:00 A.M Tyrone Woods and Genn Doherty were killed by a Morter shot during a volley that did no exceed 4 shots.
The timeline above can be gleamed from this atrociously assembled article if you read through it and fix the narrative of all of the misleading opinions and heresay.
The initial commands of "Stand Down" were for the initial attack on the consulate, and arguably at that point have no basis in fact of being higher than a very low chain of commands while the fog of war was being sorted out. The official investigation should reveal this .
Woods and Doherty did not die at the Consulate. They died at the Annex after the Libyan and American "Rescue" teams were present. In a Voley that was very much seperate from the initial consulate attack.
Based on the timeline that the AQRF and Libyan Army showed up with 50 Cal assualt vehicles, I doubt there was a prolonged battle raging and being monitored at this point. The official investigation will reveal what really occcured here.
There is much to be learned from this, but nohwere in the narrative is there any indication that watching from DC or the AIr couid have somehow saved these Men from this attack. Maybe there were places for improvement in the intial response from the annex but I see no overarching failure to act and respond to an unforseen attack.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
KPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2526 posts, RR: 3 Reply 123, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 121): It is totally inappropriate to try to involve Obama in such low level tactics. He presides over millions of men and women every day... not just one Embassy. It is too small to even get to his desk, ever. Somebody screwed up... it happens. There are solutions. Nothing to do with POTUS though.
Except when it's George W. Bush, right?
View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119): He failed to protect a U.S Ambassador (vis a vis the President himself) when he knew within minutes (and was watching live video or his immediate underlings were) that the consulate was under attack by a 100+ heavily armed combatants.
Your own sources say that there were factors in the response that the President couldn't have had control over. When he learned (fully) of the attack doesn't matter as much as when responses, ordered by the President or by someone else in the chain of command, were actually available in the area, and that's something he couldn't have changed on an hour-by-hour basis. Even if he could though, it seems you'd probably not be happy, because you said this:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3): Why is it every time a Fox News story appears people want another source? I don't see people asking for the obviously leftwing biased MSM for additional sources. The MSM probably won't cover this because it exposes the guy in the White House as incompetent or a traitor. So much for Leon Panetta's claim they had no intelligence.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 125, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1740 times:
I love how certain inconvenient questions get ignored and more nonsense gets rambled. Yeah, it's totally the President's fault. Every time we have demonstrators outside our embassies with scary weapons, let's evacuate the embassy. I'm sure we won't be evacuating embassies daily, I'm sure pundits wouldn't attack the President for the dozens of false alarms, and I'm sure the terrorists wouldn't catch on and constantly show up at embassies (and watch us evacuate every single time.)
Some of you guys are being ridiculous. If someone proves your claim as false or BS, you don't just grab the next nearest criticism and just keep on the attack, cycling one excuse after another. You go "oh, I was wrong, maybe I should rethink my position and if my new understanding still supports criticizing the President, then I'll keep doing it."
You guys are turning me into a crazy left-winger. I'm standing completely still... I saw the center between the right and left shoot right past me because the "right" is getting dragged so far into the extremes. You can think the President is the worst we've had and not disagree with him 100% of the time.
RIP Chris Stevens, I'm sorry your death has become the weapon of choice by a political party...
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 127, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 126): Quoting casinterest (Reply 122):
The official investigation should reveal this .
I won't be betting anything on that,
Then what should be do if the "official investigation" isn't doing enough? Shoot from the hip and listen to some pundits that really have no idea how any of this stuff works? Assume that he's guilty and come up with a new reason every time an old one gets proven wrong or dismissed? That seems to be the current tactic.
Still waiting for an answer to my previous question about the video. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I could be 100% wrong... instead of just saying how wrong the President is, why not work to convince others like me who are willing to listen?
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1719 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 125): I love how certain inconvenient questions get ignored and more nonsense gets rambled.
I love it even more when it happens one post after the one pointing it out.
Also as an actual America-hating gun-control socialist (well, way more of one than Obama is, at least) I find it incredibly annoying when people misconstrue my positions as centrism. Wait no, they don't actually do that, I guess the transitive property doesn't apply to politics.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 129, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1702 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 128): I love it even more when it happens one post after the one pointing it out.
And I'm not just egging them on... I respect the opinions of many right-leaning posters on this site. Look at my RU list, I think there are more right-leaning posters on there than left-winging ones. I am being completely open right now, I'm not trying to box anyone into a corner just to prove them "wrong." There is some big controversial movement and I'm waving my arms telling them to convince me... the lack of any creditable responses, well, leads me to believe that they are just making noise to make noise. I used to be very critical of people that said "certain people are making this an issue because they don't like Obama" and I called them out on it but now, I can't help but agree.
Whoever is right, whoever is wrong, whoever wins this election, etc, I hope that this country can be less polarized. Yes, I see it from both sides, outside of this thread, (I really do) so I'm not just right-wing bashing. Sad sad state of affairs we are in
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 131, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1688 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 129): Yes, I see it from both sides, outside of this thread, (I really do) so I'm not just right-wing bashing.
So do I, and there's always plenty of blame to go around. There's just something about the internet format that makes it so conspicuous. The worry I have is this ongoing trend (most visible under Bush and Obama but you could make an earlier starting point if you wanted) of instead of raising objections to ideas of the opposing party, either on legal or policy grounds, the preferred way of opposing politicians you disagree with has been to delegitimize them in various ways; not to concede that they hold the office you want but are using it to do things you don't like, but rather to undercut the notion that they should be allowed to hold it to begin with. Obama says "Romney isn't one of us," Republicans redefine scary sounding words like socialism to make them apply to Obama, and so forth.
The problem with this is, in addition to undermining notions of truth, is that if you actually believe it, and people do, it makes it ideologically impossible to come to a reasonable and honest compromise over policy issues. Negotiation could be giving both sides a little of what they want in order to advance a larger set of ideas and keep government running. But now, since the opposition shouldn't be there and doesn't want America to exist or whatever, to concede anything to them is to give them more than they deserve. I suppose this would be workable up to a point if not for the fact that solving Medicare is going to be basically impossible without a legitimate, meet-in-the-middle-if-required bipartisan proposal.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 132, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1678 times:
It may very well turn out that in hindsight there was a brief period when an exceptionally responsive rescue force from Sicily or wherever might possibly have been able to muster themselves out of bed to do some good had everything gone perfectly.
But I doubt it.
.
.
.
...At 8pm the ambassador finishes a meeting with another ambassador and says he's retiring for the evening.
.....At around 9 or a little before a mob forms outside the consulate.
.......At around 9:30 the first shots are fired and a short time later the consulate alarm is sent out.
.........By 10 Libyan help arrives and additional American guards.
..........11pm most Americans are safely evacuated by now but the ambassador is missing
............12 midnight : looters are on the grounds
..............1 am the ambassador is admitted to a hospital and is pronounced dead a short time later
................1 am or a little later US reinforcements from Tripoli arrive to protect Americans in annex
...................2-3 am Annex is attacked, Doherty and Woods killed protecting staff at annex
....................Dawn: first evacuation flight
......................8-9am Second and final evacuation flight
.
.
.
Most of the violence happened before 9pm in America so everyone was probably awake, but I doubt if the quick pace of events could have seen anything else done from Washington to prevent the casualties so quickly inflicted. What else could Obama have done? Is there any suggestion he was given rescue options that he overruled (that would have made a difference if not overruled?)
Pu
interesting timeline provided by Wall Steet Journal but I couldn't get it to post. WSJ: How the Benghazi Attack Unfolded
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 133, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1647 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 131): The problem with this is, in addition to undermining notions of truth, is that if you actually believe it, and people do, it makes it ideologically impossible to come to a reasonable and honest compromise over policy issues.
I was in this boat for a while. This Bengazi situation really opened my eyes though... I saw this situation from the very beginning and I started out neutral and was absolutely disgusted at how the President was instantly criticized. I mean he may very well be responsible, there could be a huge scandal that demands that he be removed from office........ but we still don't even know everything, and these criticisms started instantly.
The part that really disgusted me was the GOP playing hot potato with their excuses... "blah blah blah Obama did this..." that didn't stick so they went to the next one "blah blah didn't do that" next, and next, and next, until something stuck.
It's like if I arrested you for burglary when you were obviously innocent. It's found out that you're innocent so I accuse you of tax evasion (without letting you out of jail.) That's false, "OH your license plate is suspended, told you you were guilty!!!" (Lame excuse, use that until they find out you went 15 mph over the speed limit the other day passing someone, so they pin that on you.)
Kinda a stupid scenario ^^ but that's the way I see it
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 134, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 126): Hillary Clinton talking to the Algerians about Islamists in northern Mali and trying to control them negates my post?
Calling the Obama administration "the regeme" just like Rush Limbaugh negates your post.
Or, trying to distract from the facts of Bengazi by Hillary going after al-Qaida in Mali being an evil thing.
Take your pick.
Since when is trying to stop al-Qaida a bad thing? Oh, that's right: a Democrat is in the White House. That's why it is a bad, evil, awful, horrible anti-American thing.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7782 posts, RR: 22 Reply 135, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1641 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 133): It's like if I arrested you for burglary when you were obviously innocent. It's found out that you're innocent so I accuse you of tax evasion (without letting you out of jail.) That's false, "OH your license plate is suspended, told you you were guilty!!!" (Lame excuse, use that until they find out you went 15 mph over the speed limit the other day passing someone, so they pin that on you.)
You find that disgusting? You don't mind that for purely political reasons related to the election (what other possible reason could there be) the administration tried to blame some youtube video for provoking the death of the ambassador and 3 others, in spite of now multiple and widely sourced reports that they know there were no protests at the consulate, that terrorists claimed responsibility within 2 hours, and that the CIA confirmed that it was indeed an organized terrorist attack within 24 hours? They tried to get away with it for over a week, intentionally sending out spokesmen to lie.
A systematic flaw in the administration's thinking is revealed, where they seem to think that passivity is better than defending ourselves - hence the reason for refusing to honor ambassador Stevens' requests for additional security, and the now numerous and multi-sourced reports that some in the administration still hesitated to provide support when it became known that the manure had hit the ventilator. To this day, when asked if support was denied, the administration (including Obama) steadfastly refuses to answer the question.
Your statement that the administration is successfully proving various accusations wrong is incorrect. The fact that the administration (presumably under direct orders from Obama) deliberately tried to hide the fact that the attack was by organized terrorists is incontrovertible. That their policies regarding security made such an attack possible also cannot be denied. That the administration blocked rescue efforts after the attack is not yet proven, but frankly it does not look good for Obama, especially as such action fits with his pattern of behavior. Obama wants people to think that since he killed Bin Laden, no organized terror threat exists any longer.
Speaking of Bin Laden, apparently he is a campaign donor to Obama's re-election, thanks to his elimination of security protocols on donations.
Quote: Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.
The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”
“Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.
Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.
The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.
The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.
Note that such contributions were also allowed by the Obama campaign in 2008 by the same mechanism, and he got away with it.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 136, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): You find that disgusting? You don't mind that for purely political reasons related to the election (what other possible reason could there be) the administration tried to blame some youtube video for provoking the death of the ambassador and 3 others, in spite of now multiple and widely sourced reports that they know there were no protests at the consulate, that terrorists claimed responsibility within 2 hours, and that the CIA confirmed that it was indeed an organized terrorist attack within 24 hours? They tried to get away with it for over a week, intentionally sending out spokesmen to lie.
I don't see what political benefit Obama could have by blaming a terrorist attack on a Youtube video. So far the only thing I've heard is that calling it terrorism somehow makes it worse for him (even though he did, in fact, call it terrorism.) And I'm unable to parse that logic, the terrorist attack that happened under Bush's administration was actually pretty helpful for him in terms of raw politics.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): A systematic flaw in the administration's thinking is revealed, where they seem to think that passivity is better than defending ourselves - hence the reason for refusing to honor ambassador Stevens' requests for additional security, and the now numerous and multi-sourced reports that some in the administration still hesitated to provide support when it became known that the manure had hit the ventilator. To this day, when asked if support was denied, the administration (including Obama) steadfastly refuses to answer the question.
There were valid reasons the lack of immediate additional assets in Benghazi. They've been gone over repeatedly in this thread. We don't know if it was the administration that decided whether or not to send them, as far as I can tell. We don't even know if they would have helped, considering that the ambassador's death was pretty early in the crisis from what I understand. I don't know how any of this amounts to systematic passivity, especially in light of other actions taken by this administration (launching an attack on Col. Gaddhafi without asking Congress is many things, but passive is not one of them.)
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): Your statement that the administration is successfully proving various accusations wrong is incorrect. The fact that the administration (presumably under direct orders from Obama) deliberately tried to hide the fact that the attack was by organized terrorists is incontrovertible. That their policies regarding security made such an attack possible also cannot be denied. That the administration blocked rescue efforts after the attack is not yet proven, but frankly it does not look good for Obama, especially as such action fits with his pattern of behavior. Obama wants people to think that since he killed Bin Laden, no organized terror threat exists any longer.
Presumably. Presumably. Yeah, that's a good substitute for "this is what I want to be true." Especially when your incontrovertible and undeniable statements are neither of these things. Look, Obama said he was going to bring them to justice- whether they're "organized terrorists" is not material to that and frankly no one has yet explained why it's material to anything. So the President didn't straight-up call them Al Qaeda on day one- is that important? I mean, if I just had a friend get murdered I wouldn't care so much if the police called him a "gunman" or a "suspect" when looking for the killer, so long as they actually got the guy and figured out why/how it happened- so far there's been nothing that leads me to believe that the latter will not take place.
The "pattern of behavior" is in your head, not Obama's. On what universe is it logical, in terms of policy or politics, to attempt to halt a rescue effort of your own employees and officials?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): Speaking of Bin Laden, apparently he is a campaign donor to Obama's re-election, thanks to his elimination of security protocols on donations.
Does that mean I can indict Romney for "conservative activists" trying to break into a Senator's office? Because that happened too, and says about as much about the man himself.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 137, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): in spite of now multiple and widely sourced reports that they know there were no protests at the consulate,
False. There was a protest at the consulate. It is believed that this protest provided cover for the attack.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): that terrorists claimed responsibility within 2 hours
Terrorists claim responsibility for almost everything, dude.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): To this day, when asked if support was denied, the administration (including Obama) steadfastly refuses to answer the question.
That is a lie.
The Administration has said that support was NOT denied.
You need better sources. World Net Daily ain't cuttin' it.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 138, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1609 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135):
Speaking of Bin Laden, apparently he is a campaign donor to Obama's re-election
Its hard to believe that the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan has devolved into the likes of Joseph Farah, whose made his career off inventing the birther movement and apparently registering "Osama bin Laden" as a donor to the Obama website. The party of fiscally conservative brains like Arthur Laffer is now the party of lowbrow tabloid-style appeal in vehicles like Farah's WorldNetDaily and the New York Post.
The ideas of low taxes and small government holds widespread appeal.
...
....but a big reason Obama is favoured to win the election (even in the middle of a struggling economy) is because the Republican fiscal conservative message is washed out by the freaky voices like Farah and distractions like the Benghazi crusaders who make Republicans look like a bunch of angry rednecks leading ignorant hillbillies about topics that just aren't very important to mainstream America.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14347 posts, RR: 26 Reply 139, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1605 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 85): WHY IS THE "Terrorism" label so important to you?
The short answer would be that terrorism is a crime against America and therefore all Americans.
If a Crip shoots a Blood somewhere in South Central, it's a crime against the guy that got shot. It's a crime against his family and friends and it's a crime against his gang. I'm not saying that it's okay, but ultimately it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me and 99% of America. It's just a statistic.
Terrorism, however, is an active battle against all of us. It's a crime against all Americans much more than common street thugs shooting at each other, which requires a response. That's why terrorism matters so much.
Quoting Pu (Reply 138): The ideas of low taxes and small government holds widespread appeal.
...
....but a big reason Obama is favoured to win the election (even in the middle of a struggling economy) is because the Republican fiscal conservative message is washed out by the freaky voices like Farah and distractions like the Benghazi crusaders who make Republicans look like a bunch of angry rednecks leading ignorant hillbillies about topics that just aren't very important to mainstream America.
Exactly. The Tea Party and Birther movements are the best things that have happened to the Democrats. All of the issues with the country can be covered up by pointing at the lunatic fringe.
Considering the state of affairs, liberals, as always really, should be scared shitless of smart conservatives and thank their lucky stars that such people get shouted down by the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. Milton Friedman having died in 2006 doesn't hurt them either.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4789 posts, RR: 9 Reply 140, posted (6 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1601 times:
Considering your strange political system smart people (from all sides) are needed to get something done, so I don't see why democrats would be scared of smart republicans. In fact as far as I can see Obama has been reaching across the aisle since his first campaign and is still doing it, the fact that there is nobody to reach should scare every US citizen.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 141, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 134): Calling the Obama administration "the regeme" just like Rush Limbaugh negates your post.
I can't/don't listen to Rush so I don't know what you're talking about. Obama has issued more Executive Orders (923) than any other President save FDR (3,000+) It appears he's trying to rule by fiat trying to usurp Congress at virtually every turn even if the Dems controlled it for the first 2 years of term.
GW Bush 268
Clinton 363
GHW Bush 165
Reagan 380
Carter 319
Ford 168
Nixon 345
Johnson 323
Kennedy 213
Eisenhower 481
Truman 893
FD Roosevelt 3,466
From the
Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index at the National Archives
johnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 142, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
It's so satisfying to see the wingnuts get absolutely NO traction on this story whatsoever.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 144, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1545 times:
When you have to dispatch Bill Clinton to rally in Minnesota - a state so blue even Ronald Reagan didn't carry it - you know the Obama for America campaign is beside themselves with desperation.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2558 posts, RR: 5 Reply 146, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1541 times:
Quoting johnboy (Reply 142): It's so satisfying to see the wingnuts get absolutely NO traction on this story whatsoever.
Quoting helvknight (Reply 143): There is a definite sense of desperation. This looks like a Hail Mary pass.
Does it satisfy you that the mainstream media does not do it's job? And to say it has no traction is not true at all. The desperation is now on Barry's side as he tries to capitalize on Sandy. This is his Hail Mary pass.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 147, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1528 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 146): Does it satisfy you that the mainstream media does not do it's job? And to say it has no traction is not true at all. The desperation is now on Barry's side as he tries to capitalize on Sandy. This is his Hail Mary pass.
You got that right! It is the definition of a hail mary pass, when Fox News takes a situation that cannot possibly score, and puts it up every day as if it is the biggest news of the year.
Foxnews.com even put this on top of Hurricane Sandy for most of the event. I would hope that even the most hyperpartisan out there would realize that Hurricane Sandy was the absolute most important news story of the fall.
Yes, you are correct. This is Fox News' biggest hail mary yet.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 148, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 146): Does it satisfy you that the mainstream media does not do it's job
How did the mainstream media not do it's job?
This article proves that fox network does not hire good journalists. She couldn't even put in a timeline, one that would have shown her claims of no rescue were false. She couldn't even hold off from wild opionionating when her next paragraph shows that they aready had strong backup on site at the annex when the morters and ensuing short gun battle occured.
This article goes to prove that the Fox news network is nothing but close to criminally misleading at the hghest levels, and incomepetant at the lowest levels.
At the end of the day, there is no high treason, just a very unfortunate set of attacks that took 4 dedicated peoples lives.
We owe it to them to let the full invesigation occur without really bad reporting from Fox News further muddying the waters.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 149, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144): When you have to dispatch Bill Clinton to rally in Minnesota - a state so blue even Ronald Reagan didn't carry it - you know the Obama for America campaign is beside themselves with desperation.
When ABC News moves Minnesota & Pennsylvania from 'Safe' Obama to 'Lean' Obama there is a sense of desperation. BTW, last time Minnesota went Republican was 1972 for Nixon. Romney has also started to do ads in MN (to be fair I'm guessing most are aimed at Wisconsin voters as most of the western part of WI gets MN media)
I was watching CNN and Obama was on there barking out commands like a school boy who hadn't studied all semester and was cramming for the final. Just saying.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1838 posts, RR: 5 Reply 150, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
There is nothing more depressing to me than seeing people of voting age in this country whose political views are shaped by organizations like Fox News. Is it possible we could sink any lower as a nation?
I like to remind people that one of the largest investigations ever undertaken by an American government lasted well over a year and led a Republican administration to present definitive evidence in front of a worldwide audience that turned out to be patently false. What ensued was over $1Trillion dollars spent and over 100,000 dead as we launched a war against Iraq for being in possession of nuclear weapons.
And now Fox News and it's followers want a complete investigation of Benghazi in under 6 weeks. If we were a nation of broccoli sprouts I'd have more hope.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 151, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144): When you have to dispatch Bill Clinton to rally in Minnesota
I know, right? It is just awful that the president is doing presidential things. Like trying to help New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania get out from a disaster.
How dare he send Clinton when he is trying to work! Maybe it would have been better if he had gone to clear brush then play a round of golf? Some people didn't seem to have a problem with that happening during a previous storm.
helvknight From Switzerland, joined Aug 2006, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 152, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1464 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 151): How dare he send Clinton when he is trying to work! Maybe it would have been better if he had gone to clear brush then play a round of golf? Some people didn't seem to have a problem with that happening during a previous storm.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 153, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 135): Your statement that the administration is successfully proving various accusations wrong is incorrect.
Well something happened... the narrative from the right changed every single day during the first few days following the attack. I listen to right-wing radio shows when I'm in the car so I know what the right is saying. They finally found something that kinda stuck so they went with that. It seems they are going with technicalities and wording over how much the video had to do with it (despite the FACT that it had to do with the other protests in like 20 countries) and how he responded to a call for more security and evacuation (which I'm sure there are daily requests and to satisfy every one of them would drain our economy even more.)
I'm gonna wait for the official investigation which will obviously be corrupt since it won't be rushed and conveniently be delivered days before the election calling for the President's impeachment
Quoting windy95 (Reply 146): Does it satisfy you that the mainstream media does not do it's job? And to say it has no traction is not true at all.
Um I'm highly critical of the MSM and I do believe they have a left-leaning bias, but I really don't think there is much to the story besides a lot of politicizing and speculation. Maybe they aren't covering it enough (I don't think there is much to cover) but at least they aren't shooting at the hip and condemning the President every step of the way for very unclear and/or circumstantial evidence
The fact that I've asked a bunch of direct, simple questions and gotten no responses on them, only new weak attacks at the President doesn't instill confidence in me that there is an actual scandal
Quoting windy95 (Reply 146): The desperation is now on Barry's side as he tries to capitalize on Sandy.
The huge hurricane that hit the NE? Why wouldn't he talk about that? How is he trying to "capitalize" on it, if anything, it helps Romney because he has time to campaign while the President takes advantage of the situation trying to look like a strong leader does his job.
Another funny thing I've seen is even when the President does his job, stops campaigning to work on the hurricane relief, all I hear are criticisms for stopping campaigning for the hurricane but not Bengazi. So even when he does something right he's wrong.
I could write 10 more paragraphs on all this but all I'd get are a bunch of "tl;dr" responses.
Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 487 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (6 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 138): Its hard to believe that the party of Lincoln
Back in Lincoln's day, the two parties in the United States were basically reversed. What was Republican back in his day, is essentially the same as being a modern day Democrat, NOT a Republican.
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 156, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 155): It looks like there might be cracks in the Big Media. This from the San Diego Union-Tribune.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2558 posts, RR: 5 Reply 157, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 150): There is nothing more depressing to me than seeing people of voting age in this country whose political views are shaped by organizations like Fox News. Is it possible we could sink any lower as a nation?
But if they watch MSNBC?? How about people voting who have actually read and believe in the Constitution..
Funny how everyone attacks FOX but yet it is the highest rated news station.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 158, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 156): Cue the shouts of "B..b..b..but that's an OP-ED piece!" in three...two...
'It is an op-ed piece, and one written just as poorly as the fake news article.
"the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.
Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?""
The writer ignores the fact that backup from Tripoli and from Libya were deployed.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 157): unny how everyone attacks FOX but yet it is the highest rated news station.
Higherst Rated is not a something you should aspire to if you get there on fake news stories and wild opionions not grounded in sound facts.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
helvknight From Switzerland, joined Aug 2006, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 157): Funny how everyone attacks FOX but yet it is the highest rated news station.
The News of the World was one of the largest selling newspapers in the world. And look how it got there until it was closed down due to the phone hacking scandal. (and it had the same owner as Fox News)
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 160, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1297 times:
oooh look at fake news now. They aren't running a healdling on sandy and it's devistation, the great job numbers or anything relevent. They are running an article as a headline about Security Concerns a month before the attack.
Way to stay relevant Fake News.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 162, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Despite not answering a bunch of questions that would clarify your positions a bunch, me being open minded, I do admit a part is a little suspicious: about them knowing about the attack, having assets ready, and not deploying them.
BUT
Does this writer know that 100% as a fact? Do you? Don't you think we should wait to find out if this tidbit is true before we call this a huge "coverup," "scandal," and "Bengazi-gate?"
As casinterest points out in post 158, this might NOT have been the case, and I'd like to see more on that. Hopefully he'll at least deliver proof unlike many on this forum.
I gotta admit, the evidence the President doesn't seem that strong IMO. I don't see the MSM as ignoring anything, just not shooting from their hip like others have been...
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9828 posts, RR: 17 Reply 163, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1264 times:
So, two things:
1. I don't want to hear the crying and whining from the right about how WaPo is a left wing rag when any sources are cited from there. They have always been, in my mind, one of the last media outlets who try to be moderate.
2. From the op-ed piece "Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning. Which, to me says Tripoli should have pulled the mission in Bengazi until they got an absolute answer from Washington on how to procede, either with more security or shuttering the mission altogether.
But, either way, it is Obama's fault and he is evil anti-American, right? That seems to be the narrative no matter what story comes out. I can't wait until Gov. Cristy is thrown under the bus.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 164, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 163): I can't wait until Gov. Cristy is thrown under the bus.
I've already heard anger towards him... not saying all are outraged or all have the same reason, but the pundit I heard was just pissed he was agreeing with the President on something, that's the way it seemed (and you know me, I try to see it from their angle, I really couldn't in this case I think this guy just generally hates the President.) It was ridiculous.
On top of that, instead of people saying "good job President for not campaigning and working on this hurricane relief" all I'm hearing is "the President doesn't do much in hurricane relief, it's the local mayors that do stuff. Where was he during Bengazi?!"
Even when he's right he's wrong. If the Republicans lose on Nov 6th I'll smile because the party is really pissing me off and doesn't deserve to win. Romney isn't a bad guy... I disagree with some of his stuff but I like the guy and think he cares about America. But the attitude of the GOP is toxic and I'd hate for them to see it pay off. I hope either way they get an attitude adjustment
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 165, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 164): I've already heard anger towards him... not saying all are outraged or all have the same reason, but the pundit I heard was just pissed he was agreeing with the President on something
Yes. Christie broke the prime directive, which states "whatever the President does, declare that it was wrong, immoral and anti-American." He ignored the message email and instead, said what he thinks is true.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 166, posted (6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 165): Yes. Christie broke the prime directive, which states "whatever the President does, declare that it was wrong, immoral and anti-American." He ignored the message email and instead, said what he thinks is true.
I'd normally call that out as a generalization and going to the extreme (you know me, that's what I do) but sadly, I think this statement is mostly true! I made note recently to listen to reactions to what the President does and he NEVER gets props! I haven't heard any at least, I'm sure we could go on the internet and drag some out but the level of opposition is astounding! You can still think he's the absolute worst president ever and still agree with him on a blue moon
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12561 posts, RR: 64 Reply 168, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
Quoting cws818 (Reply 167): Quoting windy95 (Reply 157):Funny how everyone attacks FOX but yet it is the highest rated news station.
Popularity and inaccuracy are not mutually exclusive
Exactly; just look at President Obama's story about Benghazi, for example! His version is popular with the press, but...
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 169, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 164): I like the guy and think he cares about America. But the attitude of the GOP is toxic and I'd hate for them to see it pay off.
Cutting off your nose despite your face.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 171, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1127 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 170): An expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem. So
I'd say it is perfectly applicable to this thread, and the fake news channel.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7782 posts, RR: 22 Reply 172, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 160): oooh look at fake news now. They aren't running a healdling on sandy and it's devistation, the great job numbers or anything relevent.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 170): Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
An expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem. So not really applicable in this instance!
oh forgive us! The Valarie Plame story resulted in newly 100 front-page stories in the New York Times, although nobody was hurt. But not a single NYT front-pager results when a U.S. ambassador and three other personnel are dead, when the president lied for days about how they were killed, and when we can't find out why they were refused help, because the man ostensibly in charge refuses to take serious interviews and the White House Briefing Room has been closed for more than two weeks. Were you even aware that the White House Briefing room has been closed since October 10th? THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 173, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1106 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): oh forgive us! The Valarie Plame story resulted in newly 100 front-page stories in the New York Times, although nobody was hurt. But not a single NYT front-pager results when a U.S. ambassador and three other personnel are dead, when the president lied for days about how they were killed, and when we can't find out why they were refused help, because the man ostensibly in charge refuses to take serious interviews and the White House Briefing Room has been closed for more than two weeks. Were you even aware that the White House Briefing room has been closed since October 10th? THEY DON'T WANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!
Go look at fake news headlines. How many of those are politically pandering to Conservatives, and how many are real news stories not driven by politics?
Fake news has gotten offical answers from Government officials, but the Fake news wannabe reporters keeps digging up heresay from "UnIdentified internal sources"
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7782 posts, RR: 22 Reply 174, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 173): Go look at fake news headlines. How many of those are politically pandering to Conservatives, and how many are real news stories not driven by politics?
Fake news has gotten offical answers from Government officials, but the Fake news wannabe reporters keeps digging up heresay from "UnIdentified internal sources"
Deflection and obfuscation. Answer my question. Why did Valarie Plame deserve so much newsprint, and Benghazi none at all? Why has the White House ceased the WH Daily Briefings for a whole month before the election? (Sure they can talk to the press on the campaign trail, but the press can't ask questions like at the Daily Briefings).
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1098 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 174): Why has the White House ceased the WH Daily Briefings for a whole month before the election?
There are a whole slew of possible reasons that have nothing to do with Benghazi, I'd imagine.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 174): Why did Valarie Plame deserve so much newsprint, and Benghazi none at all?
If you're talking about the NYT specifically, she was one of theirs, IIRC, so she's get more press regardless of politics. Also, new stories about Benghazi wouldn't actually contain much new information yet, I don't think, most of what we're talking about has been known for a while to some degree.
The Valerie Plame story was a criminal action committed by White House staff, and implicating the Vice President of the United States.
In other words, this is yet another false equivalency.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 173): Fake news has gotten offical answers from Government officials
Don't forget, some of these official answers have come from Petraeus-led CIA government officials. But is Fox News implicating Petraeus for the CIA failure it alleges? The answer to that question should lead you straight to where their motivations are.
I'll remind you what Petraeus' CIA said in response to Fox News:
"We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 174): Why did Valarie Plame deserve so much newsprint, and Benghazi none at all?
1) Because the Plame story landed high ranking people in jail.
2) Your premise is false. There have been plenty of news stories about Benghazi in the New York Times alone; 447, in fact. My guess is you don't read the Times.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 178, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 173): but the Fake news wannabe reporters keeps digging up heresay from "UnIdentified internal sources"
Wait. Let me get this straight its OK for the WaPo to report on Watergate with 'unamed adminstration officials' (aka Deep Throat) but not the biggest cable news organization. The hypocrisy is stunning.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 179, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1080 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 178): Wait. Let me get this straight its OK for the WaPo to report on Watergate with 'unamed adminstration officials' (aka Deep Throat) but not the biggest cable news organization. The hypocrisy is stunning.
What is it with your claims of watergate? This is nothing like watergate. Just another overblown hypocritical attack by the Fake News network.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1838 posts, RR: 5 Reply 180, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1048 times:
I just read the front page piece in the WSJ. The political hacks at Fox News and their inane followers can only be utterly embarrassed by the emerging details. The whole Benghazi "consulate" was little more than a CIA front focused on covert operations. This explains why there was so little information on the actual events following this tragedy. By their account they were busy as hell mopping up their operation before getting the hell out.
The irony, the WSJ is owned by the same man as Fox News. It goes to show you what the difference is between investigative journalism (with a clear bias) vs. a politically-driven "news" broadcaster. Roger Ailes and the idiots he tries to pass off as news professionals should be ashamed of themselves. This will surely go down as one of the low points of television news broadcasting.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 181, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 180): I just read the front page piece in the WSJ. The political hacks at Fox News and their inane followers can only be utterly embarrassed by the emerging details. The whole Benghazi "consulate" was little more than a CIA front focused on covert operations. This explains why there was so little information on the actual events following this tragedy. By their account they were busy as hell mopping up their operation before getting the hell out.
Other contries that protect freedom of speech have banned Fox from calling itself "News."
It's time that it happened here. Telling outright lies as fact is not a protected form of speech.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 182, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1028 times:
EDIT: I don't know how that formatting got all jacked up, but here is what the post should have looked like:
When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.
Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department ...
Looks like bjorn14's source has some explaining to do about why he was giving up secrets to bjorn14.
EDIT: looks like the link won't link. Go to www.wsj.com and search for Benghazi. It's the first link.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3280 posts, RR: 1 Reply 184, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1016 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 183): My point is that its OK for the lefties to use unnamed sources but not the right.
Your point is blunted by the irrelevancy, and deep throat was in the administration.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 186, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 996 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 183): Quoting casinterest (Reply 179):
What is it with your claims of watergate?
My point is that its OK for the lefties to use unnamed sources but not the right.
What one side does wrong doesn't excuse the other side from doing it. You should base what's right on if it's right or not, not by "well it's ok if the other side does it." And if we are going to use one error to justify another, I'd at least use one more modern, not one 42 years old. Everyone involved (in the government and media) is probably dead or long gone.
If this "cover up" is as strong as some are claiming, I don't think they'd have to resort to anything shady to back themselves up. I'd at least hope they continue to try and uncover the truth without blaming the President.
For all we know at this point, this could be a cover up and there might be something to this story! But your credibility is seriously diminished when you claim the President is up to no good without knowing all the facts... it starts to look suspiciously partisan. Just trying to help yall out, if you are wondering why no one believes that there was any wrong doing, you could at least be 1: more objective 2: honestly answer people's questions, not just the easy ones. After all, we are trying to find the truth, right? Not just make the President look bad so he loses reelection, right?
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 187): Are any of you accusing Obama of such ? What would that gain him ?
This is what I'm trying to figure out. What would Obama gain by allowing four Americans to die? I was unaware that such a thing was capable of making political hay.
pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 189, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 985 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 172): The Valarie Plame story resulted in newly 100 front-page stories in the New York Times, although nobody was hurt
No one was hurt?
100k+ in Iraq were hurt, including, what 4000? Americans lost.
The Plame affair wasn't just an administration breaking the law by revealing a CIA Agents name to the press,
THE PLAME AFFAIR WAS ABOUT AN ADMINISTRATION CREATING FALSE PRETENSES TO INVADE IRAQ
...by disrediting Mr and Mrs Plame who said there was no "yellowcake" transfers to Iraq, (nor attempted transfers) despite George Bush's LIE that Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa," claimed during the January 2003 State of the Union address.
So, yeah, the NYTimes was getting to the root of what caused a trillion dollar war and a hundred thousand deaths...which decidedly helped make all of the 2000s a lost decade for America and is MANY TIMES more important than a murder in Libya that has no long term consequences.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 190, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 976 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 188): This is what I'm trying to figure out. What would Obama gain by allowing four Americans to die? I was unaware that such a thing was capable of making political hay.
I obviously don't agree with it, but I'm pretty sure what they are saying is this:
The President wanted to cover up/downplay/etc this situation because it goes against what he has been saying: "We are a safer country and al-Qaeda is on the run." He was saying that but then this happens, throwing a curve ball and disproving what he said.
Now I could argue it doesn't take a huge, elaborate terrorist group to find a mob in Libya of all places, arm them with heavy weapons that are lying around everywhere, and easily storm a single building and (DON'T FLAME ME FOR THIS) only killing 4 Americans.
Yes, this is no doubt a tragedy. 9/11 (2001) was one of our darkest days. But ever since then, what has al Qaeda done to us? A few failed attacks killing no one. Attacks in OTHER countries. Killing our troops in a war zone. Killing 4 Americans in a neutral country (a very dangerous one at that.) Yes, I think America is much safer and al-Qaeda is on the run. And no, this was not just the President's doing! Many people have helped thwart al-Qaeda, many on the left and right.
I'm just telling it how I see it. I know it's human nature to prop up or downplay a situation for political gain, but that doesn't make it right. Argue to find the truth, not to satisfy a pre-determined goal
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 191, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 966 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 190):
The President wanted to cover up/downplay/etc this situation because it goes against what he has been saying: "We are a safer country and al-Qaeda is on the run." He was saying that but then this happens, throwing a curve ball and disproving what he said.
It's a possibility, but some people are taking the narrative way further than that, explicitly or implicitly, before we have all that much evidence to even reach the first conclusion.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 192, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 963 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 191): before we have all that much evidence to even reach the first conclusion.
I think many are trying to find some evidence before election. Even the other side can see why one side would want to find the truth out--it would suck to see the opposition successfully cover something up and get reelected when they really shouldn't have gotten elected, had the evidence came out.
That still doesn't excuse shooting from the hip, but I at least see the desperation. The fact that everything the President does comes under fire further weakens their case. Had they not blamed the President for EVERYTHING I probably would be less suspicious about Bengazi-gate. But this seems to be the case of the boy who cried wolf. Maybe this is the wolf but of course we're skeptical (lack of evidence seals the deal however)
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 193, posted (6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 960 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 144): When you have to dispatch Bill Clinton to rally in Minnesota
As opposed to "W" Bush not even being invited to come for a cuppa at the GOP Convention and certainly not out on the campaign trail for Bush III. Where IS Bush II?
{quote]
GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands -- Organizers of an investment conference in the Cayman Islands have been forbidden from disclosing any details about a speech by former President George W. Bush in the offshore financial haven, an event spokesman said Thursday.
The keynote speech by the former president was "totally closed to all journalists," and conference organizers were banned from discussing any aspect of it even in general terms, spokesman Dan Kneipp said.
[/quote]
W is at a conference on how to avoid taxes with Cayman Island investments as Romney is in the last week of campaigning. Why do I feel this is an indication of things to come if Willard is elected?
Quoting casinterest (Reply 148): just a very unfortunate set of attacks that took 4 dedicated peoples lives.
Four people getting killed is disturbing, but how long does it take for that many to die from drunks driving, or accidental deaths from perfectly legal guns?
I think we probably kill that many Americans in a very short time stateside.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 149): I was watching CNN and Obama was on there barking out commands like a school boy who hadn't studied all semester and was cramming for the final.
Obama has always been a cautious speaker, just like Romney has always been a fast, smooth talker. After all the Etch-A-Sketch changing of positions I'll go for the cautious talker over the fast talker any day of the week.
Quoting wingman (Reply 150): And now Fox News and it's followers want a complete investigation of Benghazi in under 6 weeks.
Information is getting out as it is developed through investigations and reporting.
Here is an example from the NY Times.
"C.I.A. Played Major Role Fighting Militants in Libya Attack"
Personally I put more credibility in Petraeus than in FOX. Unfortunately Petraeus may well take a huge hit as he is Director of the CIA. Bit of a tough read on Wired:
Quote:
The CIA, operating out of an “annex” near the 13-acre consular compound, dwarfed the regular diplomatic presence in Benghazi, with the mission of hunting down ex-dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s unsecured rockets and missiles. That apparently led to an expectation at the State Department that the CIA would secure the compound in the event of a disaster, which never congealed into a formal arrangement. The next month, after a contentious congressional hearing, the Journal reports that officials “were surprised” Petraeus attended a screening of the film Argo, a celebration of a CIA success.
The complaints compile: unlike predecessor Leon Panetta after the 2009 attack on a secret base in Afghanistan, Petraeus kept the CIA’s Benghazi role in the shadows. The Journal’s sources portray Petraeus as shielding the agency from embarrassment; keeping the agency’s role in Benghazi a secret even from top-level officials; and leaving Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to phone Petraeus directly as the attack proceeded in the hope of getting real-time intelligence.
FOX and the hard right might find that things they don't want to hear might come out as public investigations proceed. Not a good sign for Petraeus.
David Ignatius, the highly respected columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, who had been vigorous in demanding more information about Benghazi, wrote online Thursday: “While there were multiple errors that led to the final tragedy, there’s no evidence that the White House or CIA leadership deliberately delayed or impeded rescue efforts.”
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 195, posted (6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 909 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 190): The President wanted to cover up/downplay/etc this situation because it goes against what he has been saying: "We are a safer country and al-Qaeda is on the run." He was saying that but then this happens, throwing a curve ball and disproving what he said.
For two weeks Obama and his Administration were blaming the video thus continuing throwing fuel on the fire and ensuring more 'protests' in the Islamic world. Conspiracy theories aside, the bottom line is Obama knew the consulate was being attacked and he did NOTHING. Dereliction of Duty.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 196, posted (6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 882 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 195): For two weeks Obama and his Administration were blaming the video thus continuing throwing fuel on the fire and ensuring more 'protests' in the Islamic world.
But it did indeed have to do with the video, and most of these protests happened pretty much immediately, not 2 weeks after. In the threads of the days that followed, everyone was making a big deal about the video, it's not if he made them up.
I tried to do a quick google search, but I can't find a specific example now, I can later if you'd like. Do you remember the height of the beheading in Iraq? They had certain demands, some of them stated "if you don't release _______ we will behead your citizen." Do you honestly think if ______ was not in custody, that there would not be a beheading? Of course not, they'd use a different excuse.
Same as in this case... I don't think anyone is suggesting there wouldn't be an attack on 9/11/2012 if it weren't for the video. They'd probably use some other excuse like supporting Israel or something. The video no doubt rallied and enraged the crowds, so yes, the video had a significant impact unless I can see proof otherwise
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 195): Obama knew the consulate was being attacked and he did NOTHING. Dereliction of Duty.
Ok, explain yourself? I'm willing to listen but I sure ain't taking your word for it. I've seen some things touch on this but nothing set in stone. I have no problems with you criticizing the attack but for such a heavy accusation, you're gonna need something concrete. Posting a single link to some random new article won't do it either. I'll be interested to see what you've got
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 197, posted (6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 877 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 195): For two weeks Obama and his Administration were blaming the video thus continuing throwing fuel on the fire and ensuring more 'protests' in the Islamic world. Conspiracy theories aside, the bottom line is Obama knew the consulate was being attacked and he did NOTHING. Dereliction of Duty.
Bjorn,
if you can't answer for the Wall Street Journal report, then you really shouldn't have more to say on this. It has told you that you are dead wrong, yet you continue to harp on.
wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1838 posts, RR: 5 Reply 198, posted (6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 872 times:
Some people revel in their ignorance as pigs revel in their own feces. I see the dimwits at Fox are barely covering the story at this stage. Now they're on to blaming Obama for the lack of government assistance to Staten Island. Can you imagine? These people call for the dissolution of government and then blame the government for not providing the exact same level of assistance to every single street in every single borough of NYC.
Just when you thought the stunning blend of hypocrisy, partisanship, and stupidity couldn't reach greater depths...it does.
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 199, posted (6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 861 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 198): These people call for the dissolution of government and then blame the government for not providing the exact same level of assistance to every single street in every single borough of NYC.
But the gov't hasn't been disolved yet the politicians (both Dems & Reps) are out there claiming they will help everybody quickly. Day 5 and 3MM ppl still w/o power and other neccessities. Hampered by the fact that union utility crews are turning away non-union crews who have come to help from as far away as Alabama.
Dude, recoveries take time. The non-union worker dilemma is messed up and demands an explanation, but overall, the recovery isn't going that badly. Even Chris Christie said that President Obama was doing a good----oh wait, forgot, we don't like Chris Christie anymore
I'm not saying this is the best recovery we've ever seen, but I don't see anything horrible. I am very unsurprised to see the President taking all kinds of flak, of course he will, I don't think anyone is shocked to see that.
What I am really scratching my head about is I hear him taking flak for stopping his campaign, "politicizing the storm" by "acting presidential" and that the President doesn't too much in disasters, local governors do, or at the very least, shame on him for stopping the campaign for the hurricane and not for Benghazi..... THEN when he was in Las Vegas he got slammed for campaigning, the opposite of what he was doing before and what he got criticized for in the first place.
People are starting to notice this crap. NOBODY screws up this much, not even the worst marxist socialist Kenyan Muslim you can imagine. The day the Republican Party DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY ATTACK the president for something is the day I'll take them seriously again
pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 201, posted (6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 850 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 195): the bottom line is Obama knew the consulate was being attacked and he did NOTHING. Dereliction of Duty.
I don't see any evidence that the military or anyone else offered Obama alternatives that were not taken. Do you? The timeline is too tight. All I see is speculation in the media and in private emails between people who hate Obama. Can you show us where more steps could have been taken by Obama that were not?
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 202, posted (6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 857 times:
In fact, I encourage everyone to look at this article. Chris Christie, a vocal critic of the President, said that the President is doing a good job. Look at how many people lose their minds! It is just sickening!
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 203, posted (6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 196): But it did indeed have to do with the video, and most of these protests happened pretty much immediately,
Your right because the Administration almost immediately blamed the video but for 2 weeks were still puushing this meme.
Since I know everyone here loves and believes Fox News here is what they are reporting today.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5309 posts, RR: 47 Reply 204, posted (6 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 837 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 203): Your right because the Administration almost immediately blamed the video but for 2 weeks were still puushing this meme.
Again, why is blaming the video bad? It DID have much to do with the attack. He called it an "act of terror" right away (which I think is safe to say could be equated to "terrorism") so I'm really at a lost at what you're trying to say. Can you explain it more in depth? Being brief about it isn't convincing me or many, so you're gonna have to explain it a bit better.
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 203): Since I know everyone here loves and believes Fox News here is what they are reporting today.
So the fact that we didn't immediately deploy armed drones and AC-130s indicates poor judgement? Sir, do you think:
1: we should immediately deploy and use combat assets EVERY time we get alerted of a possible attack?
2: we should use AGMs and a minimum of 20mm cannons (the lowest caliber on any AC-130, some are higher and they carry up to 105mms) on crowds of people? I mean that would have dispersed the attackers for sure, but at what cost?
Yes, embassy security and the safe house were poorly set up. We need to up the security. But these things happen. Due to lack of security, over 200 Marines died under President's Reagan's watch. Tragedy, yes, but we weren't attacking Reagan mercilessly. No doubt, he could have taken measures to stop that bombing--through hindsight 20/20.
The reality is, we can not eliminate all risk. There will always be danger. ALWAYS. Ambassador Stevens did ask for more security... he knew the danger of the situation was getting into. And obviously looking back, I wish security was upped. But there is probably good reason why it wasn't... cost, logistics, error in assessing the situation. People die, mistakes happen, and we learn from them.
Again, the President isn't perfect and will make mistakes. When it comes to Benghazi, the real judgment of his handling of the situations are the measures he puts in place NOW to prevent the same mistakes. Armchair quarterbacking him to death won't do us any good, we know he's not perfect. I don't see a lie, I don't see reckless mistakes, etc.
Can we move on? I guess we have actually, the attacks on the President seem to be over Hurricane Sandy now. I guess the Benghazi story isn't holding up... I noticed a brief pause in the Benghazi-gate incident until a new spin was put on the story
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 206, posted (6 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 825 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 199): Day 5 and 3MM ppl still w/o power and other neccessities.
And this is Obama's fault how?
Let me explain something to you: I have a lot of family that lives in Long Island, Staten Island, and New Jersey. My parents are currently visiting friends and family ~65 north of NYC. I have heard nothing but tales of complete and utter devastation. It will take until at least Christmas to clean the mess up. Most places are going to have power restored by the weekend or early next week. You can't just throw out a number like "3MM" and not put it into context: those 3MM people live in a very densely populated area.
And those 3MM people are not without "necessities". We got by just fine without electricity for millions of years. There is still water, there is still food, there are still shelters to go to if your house isn't habitable anymore.
Basically, since you missed the news while trying to score political points: A FREAKIN HURRICANE HIT THE MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA IN THE UNITED STATES.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7782 posts, RR: 22 Reply 208, posted (6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 813 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 187):
Watergate was about Nixon doing illegal and immoral stuff.
Are any of you accusing Obama of such ? What would that gain him ?
No, we aren't accusing him of doing anything illegal. We think he's a moron, and a political sociopath. If people had to die to save his political skin, I don't think he'd hesitate to pull the trigger himself.
100k+ in Iraq were hurt, including, what 4000? Americans lost.
The Plame affair wasn't just an administration breaking the law by revealing a CIA Agents name to the press,
THE PLAME AFFAIR WAS ABOUT AN ADMINISTRATION CREATING FALSE PRETENSES TO INVADE IRAQ
No, the Plame affair was about someone leaking the name of a CIA operative - whose name was technically on the classified list, but who was by that time a desk-weenie and in no way endangered or harmed.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 190): I obviously don't agree with it, but I'm pretty sure what they are saying is this:
The President wanted to cover up/downplay/etc this situation because it goes against what he has been saying: "We are a safer country and al-Qaeda is on the run." He was saying that but then this happens, throwing a curve ball and disproving what he said.
Yes, you have it right. Thank you for at least trying to look at it from the other perspective. This denial explains why the a
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4789 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11362 posts, 
)
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2006, 995 posts, 
From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1838 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2000, 6438 posts,