Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[Phi for All]

I'm not on a witch hunt Phi, and personally I don't give a damned who is in office when something like this happens. And since nothing will be resolved until after the election, it's just a matter of: Who shot John? But the truth will eventually come out.

It really seems like it, rigney. I just don't understand where you're going with all this. I think a mistake was made trying to link this incident to a movie protest, but I still remember hearing early on that a protest may have provided some cover for the attack, so there may have been some confusion early on. But to now suggest that the White House knew there was going to be an attack and purposely denied extra security is just insane, I mean who would that possibly benefit? It's not like Obama is itching to invade Libya so he lets us be attacked to gain voter sympathy for yet another war.

 

All other reasons seem equally insane until you get to political maneuvers, and that seems to fit the bill. This is an attempt to make the president look bad by capitalizing on a tragedy that was no where near his purview as POTUS. If you want to blame someone, blame Paul Ryan et alii for not approving the requested embassy budgets.

[rigney]

It really seems like it, rigney. I just don't understand where you're going with all this. I think a mistake was made trying to link this incident to a movie protest, but I still remember hearing early on that a protest may have provided some cover for the attack, so there may have been some confusion early on. But to now suggest that the White House knew there was going to be an attack and purposely denied extra security is just insane, I mean who would that possibly benefit? It's not like Obama is itching to invade Libya so he lets us be attacked to gain voter sympathy for yet another war.

 

All other reasons seem equally insane until you get to political maneuvers, and that seems to fit the bill. This is an attempt to make the president look bad by capitalizing on a tragedy that was no where near his purview as POTUS. If you want to blame someone, blame Paul Ryan et alii for not approving the requested embassy budgets.

I can only take into consideration what I read and hear. The following link has to do with Libya and primarily about the mess in Benghazi. I don't know exactly what the truth is, but tell me; how can we have 50 to 100s of military personnel attached to embassies as in France and other free nations, but only a handfull at a consulate that may likely come under attack?

 

Edited October 12, 2012 by rigney

[waitforufo]

With the protest events that happened in Egypt occurring at nearly the same time as the events in Libya it is understandable that the White House might jump to the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was somehow related. Based on recent House hearings however it is now known that that members of the state department new that this was an organized terrorist attack soon after the attack occurred. This quick knowledge of the actual events should not come as a surprise based on the intelligence resources of the United States and the general affection of the Libyan people towards the United States based on our support during the ouster of the Gaddafi regime.

 

What is perplexing is why has the President has not fully acknowledged that this was a terrorist attack. Why has the President not acknowledged that the State Department, an office of the White House, knew of requests for additional security prior to the attack? Why is the President projecting weakness by not responding to this terror attack?

 

I recall after the 9/11/2001 attack quite a bit of discussion about a failure to "connect the dots" in known intelligence which could have prevented the events of that day. Now we seem to be intentionally avoiding the dots of 9/11/2012. Request for additional security were ignored. While CNN made an early visit to the remnants of our embassy, the FBI was cowering back in Washington DC due to “security concerns.” On September 25 the President addressed the UN still sticking to the movie review gone bad story line.

 

Well since the President won’t explain the White House blunder in Benghazi IMO he deserves all the negative appearances resulting from 9/11/2012. I tend to believe that the terror attack of 9/11/2012 made a mockery of the President’s Libyan regime change. It robbed him of a his signature foreign policy success just when he needed it most. As a result he has attempted to stick to the movie protest story. Then he hoped that time would make the American people forget before the election. Now in frustration he and his lackeys are pushing the “only Romney and the Republicans care about the assassination of an American ambassador” line. All of this is shameful and yet it persists.

 

This forum topic is “Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya.” Perhaps it should be “Who should have prevented it.” The answer to that is clear. President Obama. President Obama should apologize to the American people. He is currently enjoying the fallout for not doing so.

[iNow]

What is perplexing is why has the President has not fully acknowledged that this was a terrorist attack.

Maybe you are perplexed because you are operating from a flawed premise.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/11/vice-presidential-debate-fact-check/1628435/

 

White House spokesman Jay Carney said at the Sept. 20 White House news briefing that the incident was a terrorist attack. The president himself, speaking on Late Night With David Letterman on Sept. 18, a week after the attack, said "terrorists and extremists" had attacked U.S. diplomatic installations in Libya and elsewhere, using a controversial video that portrayed the prophet Mohammed as a pedophile as a pretext. In fact, Obama called the assault "an act of terror" in remarks on Sept. 12.

 

Just a quick point, waitforufo, and it's similar to one I've made to you repeatedly in threads about climate change... It's easy to be angry and perplexed when you lack a credible connection to facts and reality.

[John Cuthber]

Don't try putting words in my mouth. Can't you smell the crap that's being handed out?

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

[iNow]

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/12/1002021/at-the-vice-presidential-debate-ryan-told-24-myths-in-40-minutes/

 

Obama used the word “terrorism” to describe the killing of Americans the very next day at the Rose Garden. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on September 12.

[waitforufo]

Maybe you are perplexed because you are operating from a flawed premise.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/11/vice-presidential-debate-fact-check/1628435/

 

White House spokesman Jay Carney said at the Sept. 20 White House news briefing that the incident was a terrorist attack. The president himself, speaking on Late Night With David Letterman on Sept. 18, a week after the attack, said "terrorists and extremists" had attacked U.S. diplomatic installations in Libya and elsewhere, using a controversial video that portrayed the prophet Mohammed as a pedophile as a pretext. In fact, Obama called the assault "an act of terror" in remarks on Sept. 12.

 

Just a quick point, waitforufo, and it's similar to one I've made to you repeatedly in threads about climate change... It's easy to be angry and perplexed when you lack a credible connection to facts and reality.

 

Even your own quote blames a movie review gone wrong.

 

Also, perhaps you forgot this little gem.

 

http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/

 

Then there is Obama's UN speech.

 

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video....

 

 

He might as well have said "please don't hurt us for the things iNow writes in Science Forums about religion nearly every day."

 

But did the movie have anything to do with the attack? Not according to the State Department testifying before the House Committee. Who do those fools in the State Department work for again?

 

Finally you mention climate change and credibility in the same sentence. No wonder you are so confused.

[iNow]

Nice attempt at a red herring to move the goal posts. You said he hasn't acknowledged it was a terrorist act. He did. I shared evidence in support of that point. You can talk about any other damned thing you want. That won't change the facts at hand that you were... again... operating from a flawed premise and a tenuous connection with reality.

Edited October 13, 2012 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Now Obama hides behind Hillary’s skirt. I wonder how well that will play with women voters.

[John Cuthber]

Now Obama hides behind Hillary’s skirt. I wonder how well that will play with women voters.

What?

[Moontanman]

Now Obama hides behind Hillary’s skirt. I wonder how well that will play with women voters.

 

 

I thought Hillary always wears pants suits...

Edited October 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[ACUV]

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

 

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

[rigney]

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

 

War killed your ambassador, you're at war in Libya!

I believe the Obama administration is finally getting that message.

[iNow]

To the last two posters: With whom precisely do you suppose we are at war in Libya?

 

Let me ask this another way to ensure absolute clarity and encourage a clear mature response.

 

If we signed a peace treaty to end this aforementioned war, whose signature would be on the document beside our own?

Edited October 17, 2012 by iNow

[rigney]

To the last two posters: With whom precisely do you suppose we are at war in Libya?

 

Let me ask this another way to ensure absolute clarity and encourage a clear mature response.

 

If we signed a peace treaty to end this aforementioned war, whose signature would be on the document beside our own?

To answer your question of:

With whom precisely do you suppose we are at war (with) in Libya?

Personally I dont believe it is with the Libyan people in general, only those who murdered our Diplomat and his aides. The question is, why did the murders happen at all? That's easy! There was no protection in a place that had been, and still remains a potential war zone. Edited October 17, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

You have failed to address the question. It was a simple question. Please answer it.

[john5746]

There was no protection in a place that had been, and still remains a potential war zone.

 

Yep, this was a screw-up and four Americans lost their lives. I can believe that Hillary may not have discussed it with the President, so not sure I hold him personally responsible, but still he is at the helm. So that is one in the bad column. Compare that to all the pluses. Still voting for Obama

[rigney]

You have failed to address the question. It was a simple question. Please answer it.

If you are insinuating that Mohammed Magarief is in charge, forget it.

[iNow]

Okay. So we've established that rigney is not worth talking to, and cannot even answer a very simple straight forward question in response to his agreement with the assertion that the US is "at war with libya."

 

ACUV - Would you like to try since you put forth the assertion in the first place?

[John Cuthber]

Don't try putting words in my mouth. Can't you smell the crap that's being handed out?

OK rigney, I will try again

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

[rigney]

OK rigney, I will try again

 

Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there?

That's my point.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

So, lets get this straight

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

 

I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions.

Answers to your questions have been evident for the past month. Last night's rhetoric by Obama was a perfectr example.

[John Cuthber]

So, I was right about the non-answer then.

Try again

Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out?

Who is doing it?

What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

[Phi for All]

Answers to your questions have been evident for the past month. Last night's rhetoric by Obama was a perfectr example.

This really isn't a good enough answer, rigney. It's just a song and dance, worthy of the worst kind of politician, the guys you claim to hate. You've been insinuating, sidestepping, and completely failing to make your point. What is it you're accusing the Obama administration of?

 

At least with Bush and 9/11, people were claiming he ignored evidence of an impending attack so he could gain sympathy from a wounded populace so he could go ahead with the attack on Iraq that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld already had mapped out. Are you claiming that Obama ignored evidence for some kind of gain like this?

 

Or are you just accusing the administration of being stretched too thin and ignoring a hotspot that, in hindsight, they should have beefed up with more security? If they had authorized that SST team to stay a bit longer and the ambassador still died from smoke inhalation, would you then cry that they should have done even more?

 

Or are you claiming that they tried to cover up a mistake by the administration, whether it was bad intelligence or bad judgement or bad timing with the election near? Personally, I think it was a combination of not knowing, poor ventilation and playing things a bit too close to the vest. It's a tragedy, but in all this I still haven't heard an answer as to why the ambassador's safe room could become filled with smoke.

 

So please, PLEASE, have the stones to come out and make your accusations known, and stop this soft-shoe shuffle you're wasting our time with. And don't you dare say it'll all be decided come November.

[John Cuthber]

Lets face it, Rigney isn't going to back up his claims, and there's a very simple reason: he can't.

 

It's the usual Right wing ploy- say something vague but insulting about the opposition and bluster and try to distract attention if you are called to account for it.

 

I wonder which version of distraction he's going to try this time.

[rigney]

Lets face it, Rigney isn't going to back up his claims, and there's a very simple reason: he can't.

 

It's the usual Right wing ploy- say something vague but insulting about the opposition and bluster and try to distract attention if you are called to account for it.

 

I wonder which version of distraction he's going to try this time.

No distraction! I'll just wait until after 11/6/12 to hear the "alas, woe is me", and the wailing and gnashing of teeth.