The Truth About Benghazi

[Guest Derek L]

Nope. Well unless you are willing to admit Bush was Negligent on 9/11 or Reagan was negligent on Beirut barracks bombing and so on. Yes the man in charge is responsible but if you think the USA can protect every American aboard every second of the day you haven't been around for the last 50 years.

But didn't you just say:

The ultimate responsibility lays on the President that much is true.

So now your support for your own statement is based upon quid-pro-quo?

[bleeding heart]

To the extent one can desire to “respectfully” kill someone I suppose…………If their involvement in such a struggle is afflicted with religious connotations, surely we should oblige them, well keeping in sprit with their perspectives no? If they want “Jihad”, we should wilfully return the favour.

Is it any different then “waging a Crusade” on poverty, climate change or abortion?

Oh, yes.

.As to the term Zionists, from an opposing perspective, that description would also be apt………Clearly if one is opposed to Jewish Nationalism, said term is rather fitting in context.

Well, it was an imperfect analogy on my part. All I meant was that a benign word can seem to boil with maggots and prejudice when used in a different context.

And when "haji" is used...it usually a disrespectful pejorative against a people, not an enemy.

Edited October 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[punked]

But didn't you just say:

So now your support for your own statement is based upon quid-pro-quo?

No clue what you are saying.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And when "haji" is used...it usually a disrespectful pejorative against a people, not an enemy.

Maybe, but those with a longer historical view can remember the similar "Hadji" as a favorite and respected animated character from the mid 1960's prime time cartoon Jonny Quest. In this clip, we find more Hollywood conflict with "Arabs", with Hadji as a skilled protagonist.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh, yes.

Well, it was an imperfect analogy on my part. All I meant was that a benign word can seem to boil with maggots and prejudice when used in a different context.

And when "haji" is used...it usually a disrespectful pejorative against a people, not an enemy.

As we’ve said………Context and perspective…………Those referencing the term, embroiled in said conflict, would clearly deem said “Hajjis” as an enemy and not a people………I think many can make the leap between distinguishing between those that wish to kill infidels and the vast majority that don’t.

[bleeding heart]

As we’ve said………Context and perspective…………Those referencing the term, embroiled in said conflict, would clearly deem said “Hajjis” as an enemy and not a people

I wouldn't make so broad a statement, but ok. But by the same token, the idea that "gook" meant NV fighters, but no other Vietnamese...well, such distinctions don't get much traction, and the accuracy of the claim is pretty questionable anyway.

And for some Marine in the field...who cares? Let him vent. He's earned the right to be politically incorrect, if for no other reason that people are actively trying to kill him in real time.

Otherwise and elsewhere...not so much, I think.

………I think many can make the leap between distinguishing between those that wish to kill infidels and the vast majority that don’t.

Most can, hopefully. But look at it like this (another imperfect analogy, but give me some leeway cuz I'm a nice guy): Chris Rock (I think) did a famous piece on the "N word"...the piece borrowed from Richard Pryor, but leave that aside: Rock pointed out that there are "N's...who are distinct from African-Americans, in that "N's" are people who behave in bad ways.

All very funny, all timely and provocative and telling of contemporary culture and matters of race, identity, perception, etc etc.

But if I flit about using the "N word", but claim "I only mean it for the bad ones"....how much sympathy am I gonna get for that view?

Edited October 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest Derek L]

I wouldn't make so broad a statement, but ok. But by the same token, the idea that "gook" meant NV fighters, but no other Vietnamese...well, such distinctions don't get much traction, and the accuracy of the claim is pretty questionable anyway.

And for some Marine in the field...who cares? Let him vent. He's earned the right to be politically incorrect, if for no other reason that people are actively trying to kill him in real time.

Otherwise and elsewhere...not so much, I think.

Most can, hopefully. But look at it like this (another imperfect analogy, but give me some leeway cuz I'm a nice guy): Chris Rock (I think) did a famous piece on the "N word"...the piece borrowed from Richard Pryor, but leave that aside: Rock pointed out that there are "N's...who are distinct from African-Americans, in that "N's" are people who behave in bad ways.

All very funny, all timely and provocative and telling of contemporary culture and matters of race, identity, perception, etc etc.

But if I flit about using the "N word", but claim "I only mean it for the bad ones"....how much sympathy am I gonna get for that view?

Fair enough

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/exclusive-us-memo-warned-libya-consulate-couldnt-withstand-coordinated-attack/

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

Negligence pure and simple.

[GostHacked]

Negligence pure and simple.

I'd say there was more than just negligence at play. If extra security was denied, then Obama and Co helped facilitate the attack on their own 'consulate' simply be denying them the extra needed security in a troubled zone.

[sharkman]

Now we are learning more on why the Obama administration tried to get out ahead of this story in order to shape it. The false youtube video blame shift seems even more pathetic now.

Edited November 1, 2012 by sharkman

[GostHacked]

Now we are learning more on why the Obama administration tried to get out ahead of this story in order to shape it. The false youtube video blame shift seems even more pathetic now.

That is my impression as well. Nothing like a frakenstorm though to take the focus off Benghazi. And it's really odd to see Foxnews actually do some quality reporting for a change. Even if it's just for this topic only.

[Guest Derek L]

I'd say there was more than just negligence at play. If extra security was denied, then Obama and Co helped facilitate the attack on their own 'consulate' simply be denying them the extra needed security in a troubled zone.

I forget who said it over the last couple of days (I think O’Reilly) in asking the ideal question to the President: When did you find out about the attack and then what did you do?

John McCain makes a good point here:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/01/why-john-mccain-thinks-obamas-response-to-the-benghazi-attack-may-be-a-cover-up-thats-worse-than-watergate/

“This tragedy turned into a debacle and massive cover-up or massive incompetence in Libya is having an impact on the voters because of their view of the commander-in-chief,” Mr. McCain told CBS recently. “It is now the worst cover-up or incompetence I have ever observed in my life. Somebody the other day said to me, ‘Well, this is as bad as Watergate.’ Nobody died in Watergate.”

[GostHacked]

Inside job???

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1939921331001/

Obama needs to be grilled hard, and suffer the repercussions of this attack if he contributed to the lack of security at the consulate which resulted in a few men dying.

[punked]

Inside job???

http://video.foxnews.../1939921331001/

Obama needs to be grilled hard, and suffer the repercussions of this attack if he contributed to the lack of security at the consulate which resulted in a few men dying.

But Republicans who cut half a Billion from security have no role? Give me a break, get off your high horse.

Even Fox's own contributers like Geraldo are going on the network and saying they are LYING. I am not surprised you guys have bought into it what is the truth to you right? Just words. FACTS MATTER!

Edited November 2, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

But Republicans who cut half a Billion from security have no role? Give me a break, get off your high horse.

Even Fox's own contributers like Geraldo are going on the network and saying they are LYING. I am not surprised you guys have bought into it what is the truth to you right? Just words. FACTS MATTER!

High horse?

Sure the republicans may have contributed to the whole ordeal. I do believe I have posted many facts and a few inconsistencies about this whole incident. You don't need Fox sources to know that this has been horribly handled from the start by Obama and Co. Obama is not solely to blame, but being Commander in Chief and POTUS he bears some responsibility. It comes with the position no matter if he was directly involved in the lack of security at the covert CIA outpost or not. Also I don't believe Geraldo is a good source of reliable information. I put him in the same box as Bill O'Reily that they are opinion based reporters and that alone can misconstrued facts.

The story from Obama's camp has changed since the beginning. Granted Obama called it a terror attack, but first it was pinned on that movie claiming it was spontaneous, then when more details came out, they had to admit that it was a planned attack. And if you want to read back most of the thread, I have even posted information that came out indicating that it was not due to some movie, but rather a planned coordinated attack. Sure I bought into the movie bit at first, but I did also indicate that there must have been more to the story. I was correct.

Edit - sorry most of my information is in the other thread related to this attack that I had started.

Edited November 2, 2012 by GostHacked

[punked]

High horse?

Sure the republicans may have contributed to the whole ordeal. I do believe I have posted many facts and a few inconsistencies about this whole incident. You don't need Fox sources to know that this has been horribly handled from the start by Obama and Co. Obama is not solely to blame, but being Commander in Chief and POTUS he bears some responsibility. It comes with the position no matter if he was directly involved in the lack of security at the covert CIA outpost or not. Also I don't believe Geraldo is a good source of reliable information. I put him in the same box as Bill O'Reily that they are opinion based reporters and that alone can misconstrued facts.

The story from Obama's camp has changed since the beginning. Granted Obama called it a terror attack, but first it was pinned on that movie claiming it was spontaneous, then when more details came out, they had to admit that it was a planned attack. And if you want to read back most of the thread, I have even posted information that came out indicating that it was not due to some movie, but rather a planned coordinated attack. Sure I bought into the movie bit at first, but I did also indicate that there must have been more to the story. I was correct.

Edit - sorry most of my information is in the other thread related to this attack that I had started.

Again what I am saying is that the facts are still coming out. Wait for all the facts to come out because right now no one knows what happened.

As for the movie or not the movie that that is still up in the air however the Intel that was given to the President said quite clearly that they thought it was a spontaneous terrorist attack. That is what the Intel said. Deal with it.

Edited November 2, 2012 by punked

[GostHacked]

Again what I am saying is that the facts are still coming out. Wait for all the facts to come out because right now no one knows what happened.

Oh we do have a darn good idea of what happened. Many facts have already been made known.

Here are my questions -

What is the role of this CIA covert base in Benghazi?

What was it's connection to the 'consulate' ?

Was there even a consulate to begin with?

What was Stevens role in making contact with the rebels?

What was Stevens role in keeping communication lines open between the rebels and the White House/Pentagon?

Why was Hillary made to take responsibility for the whole ordeal?

Were the attackers rebels? If so, why would the same people Stevens tried to help end up killing him?

Sure we still are waiting for some facts, but the fact remains that this was a coordinated planned attack, and there simply was not enough security at the consulate in order to hold off the perps who attacked the consulate and kill several people.

[punked]

Oh we do have a darn good idea of what happened. Many facts have already been made known.

Here are my questions -

What is the role of this CIA covert base in Benghazi?

What was it's connection to the 'consulate' ?

Was there even a consulate to begin with?

What was Stevens role in making contact with the rebels?

What was Stevens role in keeping communication lines open between the rebels and the White House/Pentagon?

Why was Hillary made to take responsibility for the whole ordeal?

Were the attackers rebels? If so, why would the same people Stevens tried to help end up killing him?

Sure we still are waiting for some facts, but the fact remains that this was a coordinated planned attack, and there simply was not enough security at the consulate in order to hold off the perps who attacked the consulate and kill several people.

Lots of great questions we should wait for the 1000 page report that will surly come out of this that will answer all your questions. It took 6 years to get our 9/11 report these things take time.

Here is a new story today about how Fox was wrong again with many posters in this thread who keep claiming, No help was sent blah blah blah blah. We keep learning new information which keeps showing the people in this thread that are trying to muddy the truth are only making themselves look the fool.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/world/africa/cia-played-major-defensive-role-in-libya-attack.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

Details take time but we will get a report and it will be detailed. It is going to take time so just wait and stop making yourselves look stupid.

Edited November 2, 2012 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

But Republicans who cut half a Billion from security have no role? Give me a break, get off your high horse.

Even Fox's own contributers like Geraldo are going on the network and saying they are LYING. I am not surprised you guys have bought into it what is the truth to you right? Just words. FACTS MATTER!

I thought you said:

The ultimate responsibility lays on the President that much is true.

[sharkman]

I just watched the NBC evening news and not one word about the Benghazi story. A nice story, however, on how they think that Sandy will boost Obama's numbers. They had no numbers to back this up, though I'm sure they dug and searched for some data, but none exists. Just a few more days now.

Edited November 3, 2012 by sharkman

[Guest Derek L]

I just watched the NBC evening news and not one word about the Benghazi story. A nice story, however, on how they think that Sandy will boost Obama's numbers. They had no numbers to back this up, though I'm sure they dug and searched for some data, but none exists. Just a few more days now.

Did they mention the gas lines and looting in New York and New Jersey?

[GostHacked]

Lots of great questions we should wait for the 1000 page report that will surly come out of this that will answer all your questions. It took 6 years to get our 9/11 report these things take time.

You honestly think you are going to get an honest answer from those reports? It took 6 years for the 9/11 reports and much of the reports are missing key information. I expect this report to partly fabricated as well or at the least huge omissions.

When the CIA investigates itself, what do you really think the results would be? Would you even trust i? I sure would not.

Here is a new story today about how Fox was wrong again with many posters in this thread who keep claiming, No help was sent blah blah blah blah. We keep learning new information which keeps showing the people in this thread that are trying to muddy the truth are only making themselves look the fool.

And at the same time we are being played like fools. There was no consulate. Since there was no consulate, the rest of the whole story is fake and fabricated. That seems to be key here to the whole ordeal. And if my questions were answered, we would soon find out that the story that Obama and his handlers are trying to put forth would fall apart like a wet paper bag in a windstorm. It already is falling apart. But instead of waiting for real information to come out as you say, Obama jumped in with both feet and tried to tell us what the real story was. Maybe we should be asking Obama why he did not wait for the facts?

Your link is also broken.

Details take time but we will get a report and it will be detailed. It is going to take time so just wait and stop making yourselves look stupid.

Even with the new information coming out, it all seems to back up my story and not the official one Obama is putting forth.

[sharkman]

Did they mention the gas lines and looting in New York and New Jersey?

Yes, and I assume you mean that these are some of the data that would prove the theory that Sandy is helping Obama? It might well be, but I'm talkng about actual numbers, polling data that show a before Sandy after Sandy comparsion, much like Romney's before and after numbers after debate 1.

I am surprised that punked compares 9/11 to the Benghazi thing, inferring that we might be waiting several years for a report on the matter. A tiny structure was attacked and torched by mostly small arms. There were 4 deaths, not 4,000. The Dems desperately want this report in 6 years, well after Obama is off the scene, but in reality a report is not what we should be waiting for. When 9/11 happened, reporters were crawling over the scene, doing actual reporting about the event and no doubt breathing in noxious fumes/dust while risking life and limb to crumbling ruins. Funny how they deem this attack unnewsworthy, eh?

Edited November 3, 2012 by sharkman

[Sleipnir]

I haven't read any of the 22 pages of posts but I did wanted to mention something...

2002 - US consulate in Karachi, Pakistan attacked - 10 killed.

2004 - US embassy in Uzbekistan Bombed - 2 killed, 9 injured.

2004 - US consulate in Saudi Arabia attacked - 8 killed.

2006 - US embassy in Syria attacked - 1 killed.

2008 - US embassy in Yemen bombed - 10 killed.

~4 years later~

2012 - US embassy in Benghazi, Libya attacked - 4 killed.

NOW they are concerned about security?

NOW they demand an investigation?

[GostHacked]

CIA Admits role in Benghazi attacks..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9650199/CIA-confirms-role-in-US-consulate-attack-in-Benghazi.html

President Barack Obama's administration has faced a storm of pre-election questions about why there was not more security at the US consulate where four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed on September 11.

The Wall Street Journal said the consulate was being used as a CIA operation, adding that of the 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the assault, just seven worked for the State Department.

It also identified the two security contractors killed in the attack – former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty – as working for the Central Intelligence Agency and not the State Department.

In a break from tradition, it said CIA Director David Petraeus did not attend the ceremony when the coffins arrived back on American soil in order to conceal the CIA operation in eastern Libya.

It said the nearly two dozen CIA operatives secretly worked out of a separate building known as the "annex," where officials at the consulate had retreated following the initial attack before coming under fire again.

There was no consulate.