Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CIA Ops Told To Stand Down In BEN Attack  
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4172 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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...uring-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

So who and why would give the order to stand down and let the ambassador get killed?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
259 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19415 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4173 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.

Do you have a source other than Fox?


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4155 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.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4155 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
Do you have a source other than Fox?

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]


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4147 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.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19415 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4147 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.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4142 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.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4141 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?
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
Because Fox is neither unbalanced nor is it trustworthy.

...and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT are such fine journalistic organs.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 4):
There are a lot of ramifications for violating a countries soveriegnty

But they had no problem violating Libyan airspace when the Colonel was in power.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19415 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4111 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.

[Edited 2012-10-26 13:38:54]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4107 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.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4097 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.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4096 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.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4090 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.

/rant



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

So, IS there a source other than foxnews on this?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3573 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4074 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.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4069 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
So who and why would give the order to stand down and let the ambassador get killed?

If we are talking about the CIA then we need to look to the Director of the CIA: David H. Petraeus

(https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/leadership/david-h.-petraeus.html)

This guy is no slouch, but he is Director.

Like the State Department, I can see the CIA reviewing the issues (and actions) very carefully and delivering a solid report to the President.

Personally I am ready to give Petraeus the benefit of the doubt until we see something very solid to change my opinion.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4067 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!

Pu


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4047 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  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4025 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?

Maybe this will help.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...a-security-Libya-hours-killed.html

"Defense department officials considered sending troops in to rescue the ambassador and staff, according to CBS News, but ultimately decided not to "



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4008 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.

Pu


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6580 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4003 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3982 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 19):
Maybe this will help.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html

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"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_daily_mail

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 21):
conservative outrage over it is a joke.

  



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6531 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3950 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
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3943 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.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3997 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3977 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.


From the CIA, presumably with the Director's okie-dokie:
"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
http://nation.foxnews.com/petraeus/2...under-bus?intcmp=fly#ixzz2ASNNTR77

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.

[Edited 2012-10-26 18:50:43]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3992 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.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 4):
There are a lot of ramifications for violating a countries soveriegnty

But they had no problem violating Libyan airspace when the Colonel was in power.

Because they had a UN Security Council resolution asking them to do it. Why is the difference so hard to understand?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 27):
Because people are reporting that they actually did give that order?


Why didn't the statement read: "No such order was given to our people"?

Why is the statement crafted to remove the CIA from the loop?

As time goes on, the truth will come out. It always does.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 27):
And your point is what exactly?


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?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3963 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.


User currently offlinejakeorion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3962 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
The administration lied about the events leading up to that death.

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.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3961 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
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3944 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

Basically the complaints of people seem to come down to the fact that apparently we didn't shoot enough Muslims or something like that.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3926 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


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3925 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.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3919 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
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3911 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.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):


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 Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3900 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.

Pu


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3875 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?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3859 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.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3835 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.

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

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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3815 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 Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12394 posts, RR: 46
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days ago) and read 3783 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1347 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3758 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 45):

Yup. As many have said, if the show were not on the left foot, things would be very different indeed. Does anyone even remember the Hadditha Massacre?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3761 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
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3720 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.

Pu

[Edited 2012-10-27 07:31:16]

[Edited 2012-10-27 07:32:44]

User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3716 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.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3701 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 49):

This needs to be answered before November 6th.

Why is that?

Haven't you already decided to vote for Romney?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3691 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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_16...warned-of-violent-libya-landscape/



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3573 posts, RR: 3
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3654 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.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3650 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?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12394 posts, RR: 46
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n318ea (Reply 49):
No,I don't get my news from FOX, too many fruitcake Liberals on there now.

Wait, you seriously think Fox news is too liberal?      



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8190 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3640 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3618 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3608 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 57):
reported AC-130 gunship from the OP

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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3604 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 49):
Obama ignored the question when someone finally had the cojones to ask him if support was denied yesterday.

Yep. Here's the interview reported by ABC from a local NBC affiliate.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...azi-were-denied-requests-for-help/

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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3603 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.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
You see, this is the thing. I'm not personally familiar with the precision capabilities of the AC-130
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm

This a/c would have been about 1h 20m from its base in Sicily. The fight lasted 7 hours.

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
was simply outright peaceful protest

Peaceful protestors don't show up with AK47s and RPGs in the middle of the night.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59):
humiliating

Why does imagined humiliation bring such fury to the right?

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59):
directly at the POTUS

(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?


Pu


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 61):
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
You see, this is the thing. I'm not personally familiar with the precision capabilities of the AC-130
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm

This a/c would have been about 1h 20m from its base in Sicily. The fight lasted 7 hours.

Do you know the armament of the AC-130!? Yeah try using an AC-130 to hit a select few people and miss everyone else.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 61):
Quoting Newark727 (Reply 60):
was simply outright peaceful protest

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

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 59):

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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3559 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?

See first answer.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3547 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3542 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
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3544 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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3531 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.


Pu


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3520 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.)


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3486 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3465 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!!"



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3462 times:

A little information on the C130U gunship:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130u.htm

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.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 72):
It seems reasonable to me that using the 130U wouldn't have caused massive collateral damage as some here think.

Maybe not destroying the entire country, but ONLY killing a few terrorists rushing inside of a embassy?

Plaese explain to me how an AC-130 would be employed without massive collateral damage



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
Plaese explain to me how an AC-130 would be employed without massive collateral damage

At the very least, flying an AC-130 in to take out the protesters would appear completely and utterly barbaric if successful.

Branch Davidian style.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
And it was all a BIG LIE.

No, it wasn't.

You guys on the right are sure having a hard time with the definition of that word lately.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3405 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3378 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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/us...s-on-the-benghazi-attack.html?_r=0

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
And it was all a BIG LIE.

What was the lie again?

...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?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 74):
but I can't understand it for you

Oh, I understand it quite well.

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.

Pu

[Edited 2012-10-27 21:37:47]

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3353 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.


User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3352 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.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78):
You're joking, right?

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?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 78):
Clearly, you don't.

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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3347 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3345 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.

User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3343 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?

WHY IS THE "Terrorism" label so important to you?


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3339 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.

Pu

[Edited 2012-10-27 22:57:02]

[Edited 2012-10-27 23:04:30]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3335 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
Also the State dept is full of non risk taking careerists

Bingo.

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.

Hahaha. Hopefully they'll have some additional thoughts after what happened?


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 88):

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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3245 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...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3239 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.


Pu


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3236 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3177 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.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 90):
Al Qaeda IS weaker.

Tell that to the Malians where they have severed their country in half.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3160 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.

[Edited 2012-10-28 13:54:10]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 93):

Tell that to the Malians

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 threat to 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.




Pu


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3155 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.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 93):
And you still believe that lie?

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?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3116 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3098 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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3089 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.

Wow, then we really need to read the NYT more! They are prophetic, they wrote an article about the protests on the embassy in Cairo on Sept 11, 2012 when according to you, they didn't happen until Sept 14!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/wo...rotest-at-us-embassy-in-cairo.html

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??!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3087 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3096 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.

This is demonstrably false. Here's a timeline. Notice the protests on September 11, 2012 were not limited to Libya.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._violence_in_the_middle_east_.html


You aren't entitled to your own facts.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3057 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.

Pu


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3057 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 102):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._violence_in_the_middle_east_.html

Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2979 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.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):
Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?

Slate's left wing?

Since when?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2916 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)

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):

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:

Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Beirut, Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/film-protests/index.html
(I can find more countries, btw, but I think this is enough.)

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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 105):
Another source than this leftwing nutjob site?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...n-u-s-consulate-an-inside-job.html

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.
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2863 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.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2858 times:

Quoting n318ea (Reply 110):

Based off what?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2840 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?   )



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5569 posts, RR: 6
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2811 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.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 111):

Quoting n318ea (Reply 110):

Based off what?

He has absolutely no idea.

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.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Obama: 'If Somebody Didn”t Do Their Job’ Regarding Benghazi Attack, ‘They’ll be Held Responsible’

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...attack-theyll-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.

It’s day 42 since the attack. They already know all, and are still covering up.

Does this mean open season on all US assets and embassies as we will never have better than real time intelligence?...

The contradiction between Obama and Panetta is a bit unnerving

1. Obama says his first order was to secure the facility and make sure everyone was okay (in the 2nd debate and in the Denver reporter interview).

2. Panetta says that you don’t send troops into harms way without knowing everything etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/wo...gs-in-benghazi-attack.html?hp&_r=0

So did Panetta tell Obama we didn't have enough info even though everybody was watching live? So which is it ?something just doesn't add up.

Looks like the Obama regime is still trying to keep al-Qaeda on the run in Mali.

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE89T00S20121030

[Edited 2012-10-30 06:21:32]


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Adjust the premise until it fits the desired conclusion.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 115):

Obama: 'If Somebody Didn”t Do Their Job’ Regarding Benghazi Attack, ‘They’ll be Held Responsible’

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...attack-theyll-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.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2675 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2678 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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2666 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?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2658 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.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
They had rescue assets less than an hour away at Sicily!
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
He FAILED to act!

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.
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2729 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2617 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
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2587 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.

Emphasis mine.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2557 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...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 118):
That statement right there negates your entire post, Rush.

Uh? Hillary Clinton talking to the Algerians about Islamists in northern Mali and trying to control them negates my post?   

Quoting Flighty (Reply 121):
The chain of command responsible should be named and shamed.

Except who is at the top of that chain of command and the only one who can give the order to cross borders?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 122):
The official investigation should reveal this .

I won't be betting anything on that,



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2553 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?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2536 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 129, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2519 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 130, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 126):
Quoting casinterest (Reply 122):
The official investigation should reveal this .

I won't be betting anything on that,

Because you already know everything that happened, and whom to blame? Without a finished investigation? Without your own personal credentials?

These questions are yours to answer.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 125):
I love how certain inconvenient questions get ignored and more nonsense gets rambled.

Indeed.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2505 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.


User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 132, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2495 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

[Edited 2012-10-30 18:17:11]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 133, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2464 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



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 134, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2466 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 135, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2458 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.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-accepts-osama-bin-laden-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.

Face it - Obama is a liar and a cheat.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2441 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.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 137, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2442 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 13
Reply 138, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2426 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.

Carry On!





Pu


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 139, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2422 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?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6531 posts, RR: 9
Reply 140, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2418 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
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 141, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2404 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

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi.../executive-orders/disposition.html



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2576 posts, RR: 7
Reply 142, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

It's so satisfying to see the wingnuts get absolutely NO traction on this story whatsoever.

NONE.


User currently offlinehelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 143, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting johnboy (Reply 142):
It's so satisfying to see the wingnuts get absolutely NO traction on this story whatsoever.

There is a definite sense of desperation. This looks like a Hail Mary pass.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13517 posts, RR: 62
Reply 144, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 2362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting helvknight (Reply 143):
There is a definite sense of desperation.

Absolutely.

From the Democratic Party, though.

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
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 2364 times:

Quoting johnboy (Reply 142):

It's so satisfying to see the wingnuts get absolutely NO traction on this story whatsoever.

Yeah, this wingut must have missed the memo...Former Adm. and current Dem. Rep. from PA Joe Sestak.

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2...81617002967.txt?viewmode=fullstory

Quoting helvknight (Reply 143):
This looks like a Hail Mary pass.

Hail Mary? Romney is within the margin of error in every swing state if not out right leading and most polls have him leadinhg nationally 51-46



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 146, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 2358 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.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 147, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2345 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 148, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2344 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.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3393 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2335 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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2215 posts, RR: 5
Reply 150, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2316 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.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 151, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2283 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.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinehelvknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 152, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2281 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.

Or go to a birthday party.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 153, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2260 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.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2238 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.