Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[D H]

Nonsense?

Yep. Nonsense.

 

You thank my inquiry into Petraeus's resignation has nothing to do with the topic?

That's exactly what I think. Now why don't you answer some questions, for once.

 

What do you think happened in Bengazi?

Why do you think Petraeus's is in the least bit relevant to this thread?

[rigney]

Yep. Nonsense.

 

 

That's exactly what I think. Now why don't you answer some questions, for once.

 

What do you think happened in Bengazi?

Why do you think Petraeus's is in the least bit relevant to this thread?

(1). From what i've read, all indications are that no one was at the throttle when this train jumped track on 9/11/2012. Either that or no one wants to be responsible for the wreck. To blame it on an angry mob pissed over a provocative film about Mohammed while damned near everyone but the lowest peon in Libya without an FM, and our government knew within hours it was a terrorist attack is ludicrous at best. (2) I don't blame Petraeus for the carnage, but irregardless, he was a part of it. As the debachle proceeded, people all over the world was aware of what was going on, over the internet. I can't prove this stink that I smell is real, but I higly suspect it has grown into a friginn' "Who Shot John" thing by many others. Do you think the Republicans are actually going to stop probing so long as the truth is still in question? Edited November 10, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

To blame it on an angry mob pissed off at a rovocative film about Mohammed for almost 2 months when damned near everyone but the lowest peon in Libya without an FM radio knew that it was a terrorist attack is ludicrous at best.

I agree completely, so I'm wondering why you (and FOX News) keep saying the Obama administration did that? When something is debunked as untrue so many times, the fact that you keep repeating the untruth makes your stance vacuous at best.

 

 

I don't blame Petraeus for the carnage, but irregardless, he was a part of it.

His only part was that his quick-reaction force wasn't configured in a way that would have let him respond to this threat. I blame this part of the problem the least since the Libyan government, the February 17 Brigade and the CIA team were supposed to have been in a much better position to offer support.

 

As the debachle proceeded, people all over the world was aware of what was going on over the internet within hours other other than our government officials. I can't prove a damned thing, but I higly suspect what has grown into a friginn' "Who Shot John" about the whole thing. Do you think the Republicans are actually going to stop probing as long as the truth is still in question?

I don't get why you think Petraeus' resignation is some kind of cover-up by the Obama administration. Wouldn't he be more valuable as a scapegoat, openly blaming him for falling down on the job instead of this embarrassing admission? Where's the benefit, the motivation?

[rigney]

I agree completely, so I'm wondering why you (and FOX News) keep saying the Obama administration did that? When something is debunked as untrue so many times, the fact that you keep repeating the untruth makes your stance vacuous at best.

Why do you assume that it's just me and Fox News? And I didn't say the "Obama Administration", but our government.

His only part was that his quick-reaction force wasn't configured in a way that would have let him respond to this threat. I blame this part of the problem the least since the Libyan government, the February 17 Brigade and the CIA team were supposed to have been in a much better position to offer support.

Wow! This wasn't the surprise attack of Dec.11, 1941 at Pearl Harbor or the Trade Towers in 2001. We were aware of the impending volatility in Benghazi months before it happened.

I don't get why you think Petraeus' resignation is some kind of cover-up by the Obama administration. Wouldn't he be more valuable as a scapegoat, openly blaming him for falling down on the job instead of this embarrassing admission? Where's the benefit, the motivation?

At the moment who is to say? But now that Petraeus is no longer a part of government, I believe he will testify. I actually pray that his testimony will not be detrimental to the inaction I visualize our government culpable of.

 

This is the kind of fatuous, slanted, manipulative propaganja that FOX News worshippers love to get high on. It has no substance, no motivation and plays on vague doubts and fears held by poorly informed and dimly educated mob-mentalists. What it fails to actually say gets gleefully filled in by the masses who then fail to question why this situation is supposed to be anything more than what it looks like.

Yes! That is exactly the reason for two sides of a coin. Half of the population are educated intellectuals, while the rest of us are depraved and unsophisticated boobs. But for us boobs, please stay on topic.

Edited November 10, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Why do you assume that it's just me and Fox News? And I didn't say the "Obama Administration", but our government.

It doesn't really matter when you're making vague, debunked accusations. Implicating the government is implicating the Obama administration. And it's simply not true that the government blamed it "on an angry mob pissed off at a rovocative [sic] film about Mohammed for almost 2 months". You're repeating a lie.

 

Wow! This wasn't the surprise attack of Dec.11, 1941 at Pearl Harbor or the Trade Towers in 2001. We were aware of the impending volatility in Benghazi months before it happened.

In a large region where "impending volatility" is a day-to-day concern. To borrow from American football, we don't have the forces for a man-to-man defense. When you play a zone defense, you try to react as quickly as possible to threats as they happen, knowing that you risk giving up a little to prevent giving up a lot. In this case, it's tragic that the little involved a secondary embassy and four people's lives, but this is the real world and Ambassador Stevens was a big boy and knew the consequences. He chose to stay where he was.

 

At the moment who is to say? But now that Petraeus is no longer a part of government, I believe he will testify. I actually pray that his testimony will not be detrimental to the inaction I visualize our government culpable of.

Again, if allowing him to resign gives him the ability to uncover this deep secret you've been hinting at for 13 pages, why would Obama do it? And where does that fit into your latest squawk about there being something wrong with the story of Petraeus' resignation? You're making less sense than usual.

[rigney]

It doesn't really matter when you're making vague, debunked accusations. Implicating the government is implicating the Obama administration. And it's simply not true that the government blamed it "on an angry mob pissed off at a rovocative [sic] film about Mohammed for almost 2 months". You're repeating a lie.

 

 

In a large region where "impending volatility" is a day-to-day concern. To borrow from American football, we don't have the forces for a man-to-man defense. When you play a zone defense, you try to react as quickly as possible to threats as they happen, knowing that you risk giving up a little to prevent giving up a lot. In this case, it's tragic that the little involved a secondary embassy and four people's lives, but this is the real world and Ambassador Stevens was a big boy and knew the consequences. He chose to stay where he was.

 

 

Again, if allowing him to resign gives him the ability to uncover this deep secret you've been hinting at for 13 pages, why would Obama do it? And where does that fit into your latest squawk about there being something wrong with the story of Petraeus' resignation? You're making less sense than usual.

What can I say? Everything I've enumerated on this topic has nothing to do with being factual, only supposition. What do you propose that will prove otherwise? And believe me, only a dumb ass would believe we are playing sports of any kind. Edited November 10, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

Everything I've enumerated on this topic has nothing to do with being factual

We've noticed. That part was never unclear.

[D H]

Emphasis mine.

What can I say? Everything i've enumerated on this topic has nothing to do with being factual, only supposition.

In other words, a pack of lies.

 

You really should broaden your sources beyond Fox News. Fox News and their lyin' cohorts played a big role in the utter spanking the Republican party received last Tuesday. Romney lost Ohio in part because of the Jeep lie, Florida in part because of the $710 billion Medicare lie, Virginia in part because of the military lies. Those lies motivated people to vote against Romney, even though some might not have preferred to vote for Obama. Those lies also dispirited the Republican base, keeping some at home.

[rigney]

Emphasis mine.

In other words, a pack of lies.

 

You really should broaden your sources beyond Fox News. Fox News and their lyin' cohorts played a big role in the utter spanking the Republican party received last Tuesday. Romney lost Ohio in part because of the Jeep lie, Florida in part because of the $710 billion Medicare lie, Virginia in part because of the military lies. Those lies motivated people to vote against Romney, even though some might not have preferred to vote for Obama. Those lies also dispirited the Republican base, keeping some at home.

Are you trying to shy away from the issue or is it just your way of saying, "Daah!?"

 

We've noticed. That part was never unclear.

None of your gibberish has a thing to do with Libya. But then, why not give me a sensible reply. Enlighten me! I'm learning. Edited November 10, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

None of your gibberish has a thing to do with Libya.

Were you looking in the mirror when you typed that, perhaps?

 

 

The "sensible reply," rigney, is that there were certainly mistakes made in the Bengazi situation, but it was not some massive conspiracy or abuse of power. Despite this, the right cannot seem to accept that mistakes happened and are being investigated, and instead focus heavily on manufacturing an unfounded hysteria among low information voters like you.

[rigney]

Inow: timestamp='1352580798' post='712694']

Were you looking in the mirror when you typed that, perhaps?

The "sensible reply," rigney, is that there were certainly mistakes made in the Bengazi situation, but it was not some massive conspiracy or abuse of power. Despite this, the right cannot seem to accept that mistakes happened and are being investigated, and instead focus heavily on manufacturing an unfounded hysteria among low information voters like you.

But you are unwilling to say they were total F- Ups by this administration?

[Moontanman]

Inow: timestamp='1352580798' post='712694']

 

But you are unwilling to say they were total F- Ups by this administration?

 

 

Are you willing to say this F- Up wasn't quite the big whoop you say it was? Yes a man died but I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

 

To me it seems very much like the people who tried to make Bush look like an idiot because he didn't run screaming out of that children's class room on 9-11 when he learned of the attack, no matter what he did it wasn't right and it wasn't under his control...

Edited November 10, 2012 by Moontanman

[JohnStu]

The whole Bangazi thing is to cover up the failure media propaganda campaign they did on Libya from 2010 to 2011.

 

 

Death of low ranking ambasadars in warzone is extremely common and they only select the ones that are useful to report everywhere across the whole nation.

 

 

 

The guy who died is neither a great important asset to the Dominion nor was he a traitor.

 

 

[rigney]

Are you willing to say this F- Up wasn't quite the big whoop you say it was? Yes a man died but I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

 

To me it seems very much like the people who tried to make Bush look like an idiot because he didn't run screaming out of that children's class room on 9-11 when he learned of the attack, no matter what he did it wasn't right and it wasn't under his control...

[]"Yes a man died" Moon, also 3 other brave men. That you would seem so superfluous to the event is beyond me.[/i]

But I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

Tsk-Tsk, Tell me Moon, have you ever been associated or even involved with the military?

 

The whole Bangazi thing is to cover up the failure media propaganda campaign they did on Libya from 2010 to 2011.

 

Death of low ranking ambasadars in warzone is extremely common and they only select the ones that are useful to report everywhere across the whole nation.

 

The guy who died is neither a great important asset to the Dominion nor was he a traitor.

How shallow! Put yourself in his position young man and think again on your statement. Edited November 11, 2012 by rigney

[Keith*]

Since I'm new here, and need to build up my numbers, I will venture a comment here, where I would not normally. Beg my indulgence.

Any American who steps out of American territorial boundaries without friendly local entourage (or an intimidating number of security, in

this case), is asking for trouble, or at least should be prepared for it. The Diplomatic Corps has it's own security structure.

[iNow]

How shallow! Put yourself in his position young man and think again on your statement.

Rigney, I know your intentions are true and as strange as your comments seem to the rest of us you mean well, but please at least make a modest attempt to show a modicum of self-awareness. You're really in no position to lecture others about a lack of depth given your contributions here in this thread, and frankly many others.

 

---

 

 

Since I'm new here, and need to build up my numbers, I will venture a comment here, where I would not normally. Beg my indulgence.

Any American who steps out of American territorial boundaries without friendly local entourage (or an intimidating number of security, in

this case), is asking for trouble, or at least should be prepared for it. The Diplomatic Corps has it's own security structure.

Hi Keith - No worries that you're new (welcome!), but what do you mean above? I ask because I'm an American who steps outside of our "territorial boundaries" frequently for work, and I can't recall ever having either a friendly entourage or a security structure around me when doing so. Despite that, surely you can't think I'm "asking for trouble." I'm trying to determine what you meant by your comment, and suspect you are probably raising a useful point. I just am unsure what it is right now.

 

Perhaps you're suggesting that there is a strong anti-american sentiment across the globe and that caution is always prudent? Maybe you meant that Syria is a powder keg right now, and it would be wise to double or triple normal security preparations? Like I said, I'm not too sure what you meant, but welcome clarification. Cheers.

[Phi for All]

And believe me, only a dumb ass would believe we are playing sports of any kind.

I agree, but don't be so hard on yourself. I can see why my analogy made you think we were playing sports.

 

 

Why do you assume that it's just me and Fox News? And I didn't say the "Obama Administration", but our government.

Flip.

 

But you are unwilling to say they were total F- Ups by this administration?

Flop.

[D H]

Rigney, I know your intentions are true and as strange as your comments seem to the rest of us you mean well, but please at least make a modest attempt to show a modicum of self-awareness. You're really in no position to lecture others about a lack of depth given your contributions here in this thread, and frankly many others.

In this particular case, I agree wholeheartedly with rigney's post. What JohnStu wrote was incorrect, ignorant, and repugnant. It's repugnant because any loss of life on behalf of our country is significant.

 

It's incorrect and ignorant in many regards. The "death of low ranking ambasadars [sic] in warzone is extremely common" is false, and Chris Stevens was not a low ranking ambassador. Chris Stevens was the US ambassador to key country in the Middle East, and he was only the fifth US ambassador known to have been killed in the line of duty. Deaths of "low ranking ambasadars [sic]" is not extremely common. It is extremely rare. Another issue is that Libya is not a warzone. Yet another issue, one that is both incorrect and ignorant, is that there is a huge difference between a consulate and a military base. An attack on a US consulate is very significant because it represents an attack on US soil. That the first attack in Benghazi was against our consulate raised things to an entirely different level.

 

---

 

That said, this is the full extent on where I agree with rigney. His comments on the Benghazi attack are also incorrect, ignorant, and repugnant. He is parrotting all the excrement coming out of Fox News and the Republican party. At some point, Fox and the Republican party need to realize that the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging.

[John Cuthber]

After more than a month, I note that this thread has got no closer to answering the question than we were at that start.

I think the evidence shows that Mr Obama and Mr Romney were somewhere else at the time.

Any number of individuals and groups have been the subject of vague accusations and speculation.

The truth is that we don't know: we probably never will and this thread isn't going to help answer the question.

 

Is there a point to keeping this thread live?

[Moontanman]

It's amusing in a droll kind of way

 

[]"Yes a man died" Moon, also 3 other brave men. That you would seem so superfluous to the event is beyond me.[/i]

 

I never suggested it was "superfluous" I just suggested it wasn't a conspiracy...

 

Tsk-Tsk, Tell me Moon, have you ever been associated or even involved with the military?

 

So since I've never been in the military I cannot comment on anything military...

 

How shallow! Put yourself in his position young man and think again on your statement.

 

I suggest you put your self in front of a news source other than Fox News...

Edited November 11, 2012 by Moontanman

[iNow]

In this particular case, I agree wholeheartedly with rigney's post. What JohnStu wrote was incorrect, ignorant, and repugnant. It's repugnant because any loss of life on behalf of our country is significant.

<snip>

That said, this is the full extent on where I agree with rigney. His comments on the Benghazi attack are also incorrect, ignorant, and repugnant. He is parrotting all the excrement coming out of Fox News and the Republican party. At some point, Fox and the Republican party need to realize that the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging.

As I look back on this, I need to acknowledge that you are quite correct. Appreciate the comment.

[rigney]

Are you willing to say this F- Up wasn't quite the big whoop you say it was? Yes a man died but I don't see any big conspiracy to cover up or lie, to me it looks more like a black comedy of errors, just stupid bad luck and bad judgments after the fact, if a man hadn't died it would have been tragically humorous... Nothing but a series of tragic errors before during and after the fact.

 

To me it seems very much like the people who tried to make Bush look like an idiot because he didn't run screaming out of that children's class room on 9-11 when he learned of the attack, no matter what he did it wasn't right and it wasn't under his control...

But that is the big difference! Neither Bush, the CIA , FBI, or his cabinet were aware of the Trade Towers or the Pentagon been struck until it happened. Obama and his crew "did know" of the possibility of an attack on that embassay-(ette) months before the coup d'état was completed. By the way, like me; some of you misinformed lefties should also use Fox News as a means of enhancing your ignorance. Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

But that is the big difference! Neither Bush, the CIA , FBI, or his cabinet were aware of the Trade Towers or the Pentagon been struck until it happened. Obama and his crew did know of the possibility of an attack on that embassay-(ette) months before the coup d'état was in place.

 

 

So you are saying they knew of a specific threat at a specific time (higher than the general threat that is always present in parts of the world where the US is not particularly liked) and ignored it on purpose to the end of those men dying? So far you have not supported that assertion with anything other than innuendo...

[rigney]

So you are saying they knew of a specific threat at a specific time (higher than the general threat that is always present in parts of the world where the US is not particularly liked) and ignored it on purpose to the end of those men dying? So far you have not supported that assertion with anything other than innuendo...

Innuendo my a--. Do you believe everything coming from FOX is B.S.? When someone, no matter who; has the ability of blowing a big hole in the perimeter of your compound months before the actual attack, you damned well should be aware of an eminent danger instead of diminishing your defenses. In your defense, I can only assume this article was released by a bunch of right wing idiots?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/02/u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html

Edited November 12, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

Innuendo my a--. Do you believe everything coming from FOX is B.S.? When someone, no matter who; has the ability of blowing a big hole in the perimeter of your compound months before the actual attack, you damned well should be aware of an eminent danger instead of diminishing your defenses.

 

 

Again, innuendo, if you have a specific source of specific information please tell us... People all over the world have that capability, people down the street from me have that capability, hell I do given a few basic ingredients I can get from my local hardware store, I just lack motivation and like minded friends.

 

If they had specific information about an immanent attack how about showing us they did or at least who is making the claim they did. And yes, Fox News has shown it's self to be suspect in nearly everything they say, even truth is spun so far out of reality is is difficult to recognize... especially telling in the self touted so called No Spin Zone...