Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[rigney]

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

[zapatos]

Who murdered our Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya? I know he is dead along with 3 of his comrades, but why? It has been a month now and Obama's cabinet has said nothing that rings of truth. Or are the Republicans still just grasping at straws to hurt this administration during the coming election campaign? i'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the issue.

What has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you?

[rigney]

What has the cabinet said that does not ring of the truth to you?

The first response was that the raid was an impromptu response by civilians due to a trash video made by a nut, but then changed to say it was done by terrorists. You tell me, which response is correct?

[zapatos]

The first response was that the raid was an impromptu response by civilians due to a trash video made by a nut, but then changed to say it was done by terrorists. You tell me, which response is correct?

I really have no idea. Why do you think an unruly civilian mob and terrorists both sound like lies? What might be a more likely scenario for what happened?

[ACUV]

Maybe it was Al Qaeda El Maghreb.

[Phi for All]

When Bush was president, I didn't like all the secrecy surrounding his administration. He was labeled early on as one of the most secretive presidents ever. On the other hand, I thought he was entirely too forthcoming and open about his military procedures in Afghanistan and then Iraq. I understand that he wanted to show the world that he was doing something to retaliate after 9/11, but I thought his military policies put our troops at extra risk just so he could crow about it. The publicity involving military actions further encouraged terrorist recruitment as well, this is known.

 

I was pleased when Obama took a much more low key approach. Suddenly, without a bunch of media hype to sell it, we had killed bin Laden, covertly, with a minimum of expense and fuss, treating him like a coward and a menace and giving him the justice he deserved. On the other hand, a lack of transparency creates situations like these, where the administration doesn't want to let the whole world know what's going on with respect to their situations and options. It's frustrating when the government has to play things close to the vest like this, but I have to believe the military commanders prefer it when as few people as possible know of their plans.

 

I remember complaining when Bush's administration outed our own spies and couldn't wait to tell the press about all our plans, so I guess I have to bite the bullet, so to speak, when we're not told everything about our operations in the Middle East these days. Grudging admiration, given through gritted teeth, for a difficult job in a difficult part of the world, made all the more difficult because of past mistakes.

[rigney]

When Bush was president, I didn't like all the secrecy surrounding his administration. He was labeled early on as one of the most secretive presidents ever. On the other hand, I thought he was entirely too forthcoming and open about his military procedures in Afghanistan and then Iraq. I understand that he wanted to show the world that he was doing something to retaliate after 9/11, but I thought his military policies put our troops at extra risk just so he could crow about it. The publicity involving military actions further encouraged terrorist recruitment as well, this is known.

 

I was pleased when Obama took a much more low key approach. Suddenly, without a bunch of media hype to sell it, we had killed bin Laden, covertly, with a minimum of expense and fuss, treating him like a coward and a menace and giving him the justice he deserved. On the other hand, a lack of transparency creates situations like these, where the administration doesn't want to let the whole world know what's going on with respect to their situations and options. It's frustrating when the government has to play things close to the vest like this, but I have to believe the military commanders prefer it when as few people as possible know of their plans.

 

I remember complaining when Bush's administration outed our own spies and couldn't wait to tell the press about all our plans, so I guess I have to bite the bullet, so to speak, when we're not told everything about our operations in the Middle East these days. Grudging admiration, given through gritted teeth, for a difficult job in a difficult part of the world, made all the more difficult because of past mistakes.

I wasn't questioning the truth of a Bush's administration that made a sh-t house full of mistakes. My question apples only to an incident that has been a political football for a month now. Was there information this administration knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

[Phi for All]

I wasn't questioning the truth of a Bush's administration that made a sh-t house full of mistakes. My question apples only to an incident that has been a political football for a month now. Was there information this administration knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

And I answered your question. This administration is not compromising an ongoing investigation into the situation by warning suspects of what it's doing or planning to do. If this was poker, I'd say they're playing things close to the vest so they don't tip their hand. Remember, they're spread pretty thin over there, watching so many Middle Eastern countries at once.

 

Of course the Republicans are going to use this against Obama. It's risky though, imo. If they make a huge deal about Obama not doing anything and then suddenly Obama announces that an ongoing, quietly dispatched operation nabbed the perpetrators, the GOP looks pretty stupid.

 

Like I said, I'm a fan of transparency normally, but in military matters, loose lips sink ships, or gives the terrorists time to make their getaway. When it comes to fighting terrorism, let's try using a blowgun since we know a trumpet doesn't work.

[zapatos]

I wasn't questioning the truth of a Bush's administration that made a sh-t house full of mistakes. My question apples only to an incident that has been a political football for a month now. Was there information this administration knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

[ElasticCollision]

 

I find this channel always has excellent coverage of political events. This first video explains just why the embassy was attacked.

And this second video has coverage of Romney's reaction to the attacks. As per usual, he turned the situation into a gaffe, even other republicans distanced themselves from his comments.

 

[ACUV]

How do people think the perpetrators are going to be nabbed? To send any type of a military force to get the bad guys would be a shift in policy. The US had a policy of watching from afar as it's NATO allies used it's equipment in the mediterranean to launch military action against Libya. Your friends are your friends one year and your enemies the next when you try to take the guns from them that you gave to them last year! That's why you don't know who does what.

[rigney]

The real question is, Was there information the Republicans knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

I really don't know how you could assume such since the Democrats are running the show. But then again, with all of the supposed leaks from different departments, it may be the ground keepers fault.

 

And I answered your question. This administration is not compromising an ongoing investigation into the situation by warning suspects of what it's doing or planning to do. If this was poker, I'd say they're playing things close to the vest so they don't tip their hand. Remember, they're spread pretty thin over there, watching so many Middle Eastern countries at once.

 

Of course the Republicans are going to use this against Obama. It's risky though, imo. If they make a huge deal about Obama not doing anything and then suddenly Obama announces that an ongoing, quietly dispatched operation nabbed the perpetrators, the GOP looks pretty stupid.

 

Like I said, I'm a fan of transparency normally, but in military matters, loose lips sink ships, or gives the terrorists time to make their getaway. When it comes to fighting terrorism, let's try using a blowgun since we know a trumpet doesn't work.

No, I'm sorry but you didn't answer my question. It wasn't, what is the government doing to sift through the carnage now for answers, but was there prior information they might have known that could have prevented such an attack, but was unimplemented ?

[zapatos]

I really don't know how you could assume such since the Democrats are running the show. But then again, with all of the supposed leaks from different departments, it may be the ground keepers fault.

Do you think the Senate Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pack up and go home because the Democrats are in the majority? Since the Republicans are on the committee and are known to be looking for opportunities to make Obama look bad, my question is, was there information the Republicans might have know that could have prevented such an attack, but rather than acting on it the Republicans decided to let innocent Americans die, simply for political reasons?

[john5746]

I wasn't questioning the truth of a Bush's administration that made a sh-t house full of mistakes. My question apples only to an incident that has been a political football for a month now. Was there information this administration knew, but didn't take steps to possibility avert a terrorist strike on the Benghazi Consulate?

 

Well, they knew that a damn video was heading out on the internet that would piss people off over there and maybe cause some unrest. But you didn't like them trying to deal with that did you? I guess they were supposed to start carpet-bombing pre-emptively, just in case.

[rigney]

Do you think the Senate Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence pack up and go home because the Democrats are in the majority? Since the Republicans are on the committee and are known to be looking for opportunities to make Obama look bad, my question is, was there information the Republicans might have know that could have prevented such an attack, but rather than acting on it the Republicans decided to let innocent Americans die, simply for political reasons?

I hope you are only poking fun at me and not making an actual assumption?

 

Well, they knew that a damn video was heading out on the internet that would piss people off over there and maybe cause some unrest. But you didn't like them trying to deal with that did you? I guess they were supposed to start carpet-bombing pre-emptively, just in case.

Carpet bombing? When I can't reply with a rational answer, I usually don't answer at all.

[Phi for All]

No, I'm sorry but you didn't answer my question. It wasn't, what is the government doing to sift through the carnage now for answers, but was there prior information they might have known that could have prevented such an attack, but was unimplemented ?

I'm going to assume that I'm explaining myself badly rather than that you're deliberately missing my point. I'm saying that the only information we know for sure is that there was a threat of reprisal from the al Qaeda branch that attacked the US Embassy in Libya, but there was nothing in that threat that pointed specifically to the embassy, or really even to Libya. All our forces were obviously on alert around the 9/11 date as they have been every year since the original attack. What I'm failing to get through to you is that whatever intelligence we may have had prior to the attack is not being shared with the public, and while none of us likes being kept in the dark, I do have to admit that it makes sense not to make such things known if they might compromise any investigations or operations we have in place.

 

If you follow any of the stories involving intelligence operations, you know that there are tons of data to sift through, and not all of it is true. And some of that information, if made public, could tip off the enemy as to its source, thus compromising valuable assets in the field. It's clear you're on a witch hunt looking for culpability, but you should at least be asking yourself why al Qaeda would telegraph their plans to attack our embassy, why our own forces would ignore it if they did, and why we would do so in an area like Libya that shows such recent pro-western promise? It seems clear to me at least that this al Qaeda group had a plan in place, and used the confusion surrounding the protest of the anti-Islamic movie to take advantage of security that was temporarily stretched too thin covering too many possible threats.

[rigney]

I'm going to assume that I'm explaining myself badly rather than that you're deliberately missing my point. I'm saying that the only information we know for sure is that there was a threat of reprisal from the al Qaeda branch that attacked the US Embassy in Libya, but there was nothing in that threat that pointed specifically to the embassy, or really even to Libya. All our forces were obviously on alert around the 9/11 date as they have been every year since the original attack. What I'm failing to get through to you is that whatever intelligence we may have had prior to the attack is not being shared with the public, and while none of us likes being kept in the dark, I do have to admit that it makes sense not to make such things known if they might compromise any investigations or operations we have in place.

 

If you follow any of the stories involving intelligence operations, you know that there are tons of data to sift through, and not all of it is true. And some of that information, if made public, could tip off the enemy as to its source, thus compromising valuable assets in the field. It's clear you're on a witch hunt looking for culpability, but you should at least be asking yourself why al Qaeda would telegraph their plans to attack our embassy, why our own forces would ignore it if they did, and why we would do so in an area like Libya that shows such recent pro-western promise? It seems clear to me at least that this al Qaeda group had a plan in place, and used the confusion surrounding the protest of the anti-Islamic movie to take advantage of security that was temporarily stretched too thin covering too many possible threats.

No! I'm not on a witch hunt looking for culpability. But could there have been info available that may have prevented such a massacre? No honest and sane American would think this slaughtered was deliberate malfeasance on anyones watch while in office. But I've hit my snooze alarm on mornings that caused me to be late for work. Could this have been such an incident? Yes, a president presides over all government agencies, but he should never be thought of as "The Lone Ranger". Many people from both sides of the aisle share these responsibilities.. Edited October 4, 2012 by rigney

[zapatos]

I hope you are only poking fun at me and not making an actual assumption?

I was not poking fun. I was trying to show that in the absence of evidence, asking questions like that makes the questioner seem biased. My question about the Republicans is a valid as your question about the Obama administration. In other words, a misleading and biased question.

[rigney]

I was not poking fun. I was trying to show that in the absence of evidence, asking questions like that makes the questioner seem biased. My question about the Republicans is a valid as your question about the Obama administration. In other words, a misleading and biased question.

My question was aimed at conjecture, not something that might compromise national security. Edited October 4, 2012 by rigney

[zapatos]

My question was aimed at conjecture, not something that might compromise national security.

I know, but it implies the administration did something wrong, even though you did not claim they did. If conjecture has no impact, then you shouldn't mind me asking the question "What role did Rigney play in the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Mark's school on April 23rd of this year? Is Rigney hiding something? Why haven't we heard from him on this issue yet? Has he gone through a police lineup yet? Why hasn't he submitted to a lie detector test? Is this a first time thing? Has Rigney ever done this before?"

 

Simply conjecture. No harm in me asking, right?

[rigney]

I know, but it implies the administration did something wrong, even though you did not claim they did. If conjecture has no impact, then you shouldn't mind me asking the question "What role did Rigney play in the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Mark's school on April 23rd of this year? Is Rigney hiding something? Why haven't we heard from him on this issue yet? Has he gone through a police lineup yet? Why hasn't he submitted to a lie detector test? Is this a first time thing? Has Rigney ever done this before?"

 

Simply conjecture. No harm in me asking, right?

While I don't particulary care for you using me in your analysis, it is pretty descriptive. I’ve always considered conjecture as an honorable discussion between two or more parties on an issue? Evidently honor has nothing to do with it. Shows how much I know. Think I'll just copy and keep it for further reference?

But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening? I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Qiuestion is, how true will they be? I sent your verbiage to a friend for his take on it and he sent this link back. Now my question is, how can the Democratic party allow such a creep, so full of hate; to speak for them? Is this guy still around?

Edited October 5, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Now my question is, how can the Democratic party allow such a creep, so full of hate; to speak for them? Is this guy still around?

NO! Just stop it! I am so tired of this ploy of yours, asking one unreasoned question, getting it answered fully, and then posting some quote-mined hatchet-job video that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING!!!

 

Trying to discuss these issues with you is like digging holes in the ocean.

[John Cuthber]

"But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening?"

Why do you suppose that they knew anything?

It wouldn't make sense.

Neither spontaneous gangs of rioters nor terrorists are in the habit of emailing the US administration to warn them.

So it doesn't make sense.

 

If, by fair means or foul, they had known about it, they would have done something about it.

 

Your question would only make sense in some bizarre world where terrorists and rioters give fair warning: why did you ask it?

[zapatos]

While I don't particulary care for you using me in your analysis, it is pretty descriptive. I’ve always considered conjecture as an honorable discussion between two or more parties on an issue? Evidently honor has nothing to do with it.

Evidently YOU have no honor. You have no problem calling into question the integrity of others without indication they have actually done anything wrong, yet you object when someone does the same to you.

 

But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening? I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Qiuestion is, how true will they be?

And I'm still curious as to what you know about the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Marks. I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Question is, how true will they be?

[rigney]

Evidently YOU have no honor. You have no problem calling into question the integrity of others without indication they have actually done anything wrong, yet you object when someone does the same to you.

 

 

And I'm still curious as to what you know about the molestation of the 10 year old girl at St. Marks. I'm sure we will eventually get believable facts. Question is, how true will they be?

Integrity and honor? You obviously know nothing of the two words and seem to be like most liberals I am acquainted with at the moment. Matter of fact, you seem to have the same mien as that of Shultz.

 

"But then, I’m still curious as to what and when the administration knew of this slaughter in Benghazi, prior to its happening?"

Why do you suppose that they knew anything?

It wouldn't make sense.

Neither spontaneous gangs of rioters nor terrorists are in the habit of emailing the US administration to warn them.

So it doesn't make sense.

 

If, by fair means or foul, they had known about it, they would have done something about it.

 

Your question would only make sense in some bizarre world where terrorists and rioters give fair warning: why did you ask it?

That's why we have CIA agents in such areas. To get at the bottom of what's happening.