Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[navigator]

No, it's sad. You are once again constructing a false dilemma. Nobody has said that this incident shouldn't be investigated. An attack on American soil (a US consulate is American soil) is worthy of investigation, as is the murder of a US ambassador.

 

The problem is that the phony ways in which some of the Republicans are hoping to conduct this investigation is as a witch hunt. The portrayal in the right wing media is even worse. They want Soviet-style justice: Give them a fair trial, then hang them (i.e., the outcome of the trial is preordained).

 

You act surprised, as if unaware that it happens on both sides, its not just a right-wing conspiracy. It does sound like we are in agreement that there needs to be a thorough investigation though.

 

The only way I see anything even remotely close to what you descibe happening is if some how it was proven that Obama put these Americans life in danger by making damage control for his campaign a priority over their safety.

[D H]

You act surprised, as if unaware that it happens on both sides, its not just a right-wing conspiracy. It does sound like we are in agreement that there needs to be a thorough investigation though.

No, I'm not surprised when political partisans put partisan gains ahead of country.

 

It is completely irrelevant that Democrats too have been guilty of this in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, the ugliest partisanship in the past several years has come from the Republicans. I've been around for a long time, and I haven't seen anything approaching the partisanship coming from today's Republican party. To see something similar, one has to go way, way back to the Democratic machine politics. That was a long time ago.

 

The Republicans lost the Presidency, lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, and lost their hold in several state legislatures. This is despite the fact that the Republicans by all rights should have cleaned clock this last election cycle. The people tend to punish the President's party in extended tough economic times. Compared to what they should have done, the Republicans lost this election big time. This extreme partisanship is one of the many reasons the Republicans lost this last election.

 

 

The only way I see anything even remotely close to what you descibe happening is if some how it was proven that Obama put these Americans life in danger by making damage control for his campaign a priority over their safety.

That's not going to happen because that isn't what happened. What happened is that prior to the election, the Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this ant hill. It didn't work. They made that mountain by digging themselves in a hole. Sometimes the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging.

 

A proper investigation would focus on determining whether the country's intelligence agencies are pursuing the people who really killed our ambassador to Libya. (Hint: It was terrorists, not Obama.) A proper investigation would focus on how we can improve things for the next time something similar happens, and do so without casting blame or aspersion. This isn't the kind of investigation that the right wing media or the Republicans want. They want a Soviet-style mock trial.

[rigney]

No, I'm not surprised when political partisans put partisan gains ahead of country.

 

It is completely irrelevant that Democrats too have been guilty of this in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, the ugliest partisanship in the past several years has come from the Republicans. I've been around for a long time, and I haven't seen anything approaching the partisanship coming from today's Republican party. To see something similar, one has to go way, way back to the Democratic machine politics. That was a long time ago.

 

The Republicans lost the Presidency, lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, and lost their hold in several state legislatures. This is despite the fact that the Republicans by all rights should have cleaned clock this last election cycle. The people tend to punish the President's party in extended tough economic times. Compared to what they should have done, the Republicans lost this election big time. This extreme partisanship is one of the many reasons the Republicans lost this last election.

 

That's not going to happen because that isn't what happened. What happened is that prior to the election, the Republicans tried to make a mountain out of this ant hill. It didn't work. They made that mountain by digging themselves in a hole. Sometimes the best thing to do when one is digging oneself into a hole is to stop digging.

 

A proper investigation would focus on determining whether the country's intelligence agencies are pursuing the people who really killed our ambassador to Libya. (Hint: It was terrorists, not Obama.) A proper investigation would focus on how we can improve things for the next time something similar happens, and do so without casting blame or aspersion. This isn't the kind of investigation that the right wing media or the Republicans want. They want a Soviet-style mock trial.

Were you ever in the Boy Scouts? Edited November 19, 2012 by rigney

[Unity+]

Though I would have to say the Obama administration's actions towards this attack were totally out of line, where they did nothing for at least a month, there is no reason to call out a "Who really killed the ambassador?" card.

 

 

There is a point being that the Obama administration isn't really that good at foreign policy(especially when they entered Pakistan's airspace and territory without due process as required by foreign policy). If they failed to acknowledge the fact that they did this, of course this situation was really likely to happen. People in the Middle East, especially Libya, were angered and are angered by what has been going on, which then leads to the Ambassador's death.

 

In my opinion, Obama already knew that the Ambassador was facing some sort of threat. The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador. Well done Obama, you just killed off all these men.

 

Now on to the other points. It was even said that the video wasn't EVEN close to the reason why they "outraged." The media even tried to "hide" the information due to their liberal mindedness(no offense to liberals).

 

So, I would say it was the Obama administration's fault for all of this, but if there was a conspiracy behind all of this Obama would be heading towards a different direction. Obama isn't a conspirator, he is just not good at foreign policy as he says he is.

 

 

[rigney]

Though I would have to say the Obama administration's actions towards this attack were totally out of line, where they did nothing for at least a month, there is no reason to call out a "Who really killed the ambassador?" card.

 

 

There is a point being that the Obama administration isn't really that good at foreign policy(especially when they entered Pakistan's airspace and territory without due process as required by foreign policy). If they failed to acknowledge the fact that they did this, of course this situation was really likely to happen. People in the Middle East, especially Libya, were angered and are angered by what has been going on, which then leads to the Ambassador's death.

 

In my opinion, Obama already knew that the Ambassador was facing some sort of threat. The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador. Well done Obama, you just killed off all these men.

 

Now on to the other points. It was even said that the video wasn't EVEN close to the reason why they "outraged." The media even tried to "hide" the information due to their liberal mindedness(no offense to liberals).

 

So, I would say it was the Obama administration's fault for all of this, but if there was a conspiracy behind all of this Obama would be heading towards a different direction. Obama isn't a conspirator, he is just not good at foreign policy as he says he is.

With everything that has been said, thank goodness I've never accused this administration of conspiracy. While it still smells of a coverup, we won't know all the facts until these hearings are over and possibly not even then. Perhaps there was no malfeasance, only a comedy of errors by the entire cabinet? Edited November 19, 2012 by rigney

[D H]

Were you ever in the Boy Scouts?

What does that have to do with this thread, or with my post? I can't read your mind, rigney.

 

 

 

The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador.

That false rumor has been refuted a number of times.

 

 

Well done Obama, you just killed off all these men.

Uh, no. It was terrorists who killed off all these men.

 

 

Now on to the other points. It was even said that the video wasn't EVEN close to the reason why they "outraged." The media even tried to "hide" the information due to their liberal mindedness(no offense to liberals).

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

 

So, I would say it was the Obama administration's fault for all of this, ...

You are forgetting the House Republicans, who cut 330 million dollars from the administration's request for embassy defense.

 

You are also forgetting those terrorists. The fault for all of this is largely theirs.

[rigney]

What does that have to do with this thread, or with my post? I can't read your mind, rigney.

 

That false rumor has been refuted a number of times.

 

Uh, no. It was terrorists who killed off all these men.

 

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

You are forgetting the House Republicans, who cut 330 million dollars from the administration's request for embassy defense.

 

You are also forgetting those terrorists. The fault for all of this is largely theirs.

$330 million! Chump change. Hasn't the presidents wife spent almost that on vacations these past four years? And terrorists'! How inane to accuse them of doing their job? Are you totally unaware that terrorism is their primary function? Safely here at home and snug as a bug in a bears butt, it's easy to make such an observation. Putting your kahunas on the line without the backing of your government is another thing entirely. Oh Yes! The BSA thing was only to get your undivided attention. Edited November 19, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

It doesn't matter that it's not a lot of money. They cut it.

It also doesn't matter if Obama spent that much on holidays, or even coke because that alleged holiday would have come from a different budget.

Stop wasting time with irrelevant unevinced allegations of bad judgement.

[D H]

$330 million! Chump change.

The administration's FY2012 budget request for the Department of State included "$1.5 billion in security for diplomatic personnel, information and facilities in the face of terrorist and other threats." That $330 million represents a 22% cut. A 22% cut is not "chump change." What the government spends on other items doesn't matter one bit. The administration cannot move monies from one pot to another.

[navigator]

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

Good grief, the failure in the media is most are Obama's lap dogs, did you believe it was a spontaneous mob protesting a youtube video?

 

If the initial intelligence wasn't perfect you might have a point, but the head of the CIA at the time has testified he knew it was terrorism from the start, which was accurate.

Edited November 20, 2012 by navigator

[rigney]

It doesn't matter that it's not a lot of money. They cut it.

It also doesn't matter if Obama spent that much on holidays, or even coke because that alleged holiday would have come from a different budget.

Stop wasting time with irrelevant unevinced allegations of bad judgement.

What budget? Perhaps Social Security? The fact people like me didn't get an increase these past two years may explain where their vacation and coke funds came from?

 

The administration's FY2012 budget request for the Department of State included "$1.5 billion in security for diplomatic personnel, information and facilities in the face of terrorist and other threats." That $330 million represents a 22% cut. A 22% cut is not "chump change." What the government spends on other items doesn't matter one bit. The administration cannot move monies from one pot to another.

Maybe the Paris or Berlin embassies should have been downsized? I don't recall either of them being threatened lately. Edited November 20, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Maybe the Paris or Berlin embassies should have been downsized? I don't recall either of them being threatened lately.

 

Really? That's the way you think it works?

 

Is this to give Republicans something else to test out their new mountain-making equipment on? So that when something happens they can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world?

 

At this point, you're just playing a nice game of hindsight.

[D H]

Good grief, the failure in the media is most are Obama's lap dogs, did you believe it was a spontaneous mob protesting a youtube video?

Can you please, please stop with the false dilemmas?

 

It's getting downright ridiculous.

 

 

If the initial intelligence wasn't perfect you might have a point, but the head of the CIA at the time has testified he knew it was terrorism from the start, which was accurate.

Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

[rigney]

Really? That's the way you think it works?

 

Is this to give Republicans something else to test out their new mountain-making equipment on? So that when something happens they can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world?

 

At this point, you're just playing a nice game of hindsight.

I really like the way your democratic mind seems to function. Using unbelievable superfluous B.S. to gain the upper hand in an arguement and having no one buying it, you turn to hyperbole; it works wonders on the feeble minded. Your last statement speaks volumes of such absurdity. Quote: They can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world if something goes wrong? What a cop-out! We leave an embassy in Benghazi without a shred of protection and you quivel about pearing down a luxury staff in Paris or Berlin? Shame on you! But then I'm sure, the Folies Bergere and Moulin Rouge still have their attraction? Edited November 20, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

I really like the way your democratic mind seems to function. Using unbelievable superfluous B.S. to gain the upper hand in an arguement and having no one buying it, you turn to hyperbole; it works wonders on the feeble minded. Your last statement speaks volumes of such absurdity. Quote: They can blame Obama for downsizing one of the busiest embassies in the world if something goes wrong? What a cop-out! We leave an embassy in Benghazi without a shred of protection and you quivel about pearing down a luxury staff in Paris or Berlin? Shame on you!

Has any one else ever noticed how frequently propagandists and morons use the ploy of accusing others of doing the exact things they're doing in order to distract attention from themselves?

[rigney]

Has any one else ever noticed how frequently propagandists and morons use the ploy of accusing others of doing the exact things they're doing in order to distract attention from themselves?

Only during the past couple of years have I noticed that some have a particular knack for it, or am I just being presumptive? Edited November 20, 2012 by rigney

[Unity+]

What does that have to do with this thread, or with my post? I can't read your mind, rigney.

 

 

 

 

That false rumor has been refuted a number of times.

 

 

 

Uh, no. It was terrorists who killed off all these men.

 

 

 

Uh, no. Associating all of those other 9/11 protests elsewhere in the Islam world and the attacks on Benghazi was an obvious connection. After the fact, it turned out to be wrong. It wasn't a lie, it was just poor intelligence. It was the CIA, not liberal mindedness, that originally made this connection, and was the CIA that later refuted this initial intelligence. There was no intelligence failure here. Very often, early intelligence is not quite accurate, sometimes very inaccurate.

 

There is a failure here, but it's on the part of the right wing media and some in the Republican party. The failure is expecting initial intelligence to be perfect. It isn't, it never will be.

 

 

 

You are forgetting the House Republicans, who cut 330 million dollars from the administration's request for embassy defense.

 

You are also forgetting those terrorists. The fault for all of this is largely theirs.

I would like to see your sources. I am betting that it will be from a liberal media source.

 

 

 

 

Can you please, please stop with the false dilemmas?

 

It's getting downright ridiculous.

 

 

 

Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

People still believe it was the video? Man we must still be in the Stone Ages(irony detected).

[uncool]

I would like to see your sources. I am betting that it will be from a liberal media source.

For which specific claims?

People still believe it was the video? Man we must still be in the Stone Ages(irony detected).

That's not what DH said.

=Uncool-

[Unity+]

For which specific claims?

 

That's not what DH said.

=Uncool-

All of them pretty much.

 

And yes he did. Read the posts please.

 

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

To everyone,

References
It is recommended to include references for your claims, because your opponents in the discussion will refuse to believe you if you don't.
If your opponents ask for a reference, you have to provide a reference (or explain why the request is irrelevant).

Biased media, biased references
You cannot dismiss references because in your opinion, they happen to be from a biased media. If you do so, you dismiss something that could be a fact, based on your opinion. At that point, the discussion becomes a fight. If you want to dismiss anything, you must counter this with a reference of your own which shows it is wrong.

[uncool]

All of them pretty much.

Would you mind making a list of what you see as claims?

 

I'll start; I may miss some (it's late, and I'm tired).

1) That false rumor [i.e. "The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador."] has been refuted a number of times.

 

2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing].

 

3) That the CIA later "refuted this initial intelligence".

 

4) The $330 million cut.

And yes he did. Read the posts please.

No, he didn't. What he said was

Actually, that's what Peter King said that Petraeus said in a closed hearing. That's a bit of selective hearing. Others heard more. For instance, that there were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger of the film may be to blame. It took time to disprove those alternate lines.

Nothing about anyone still believing it was the video - in fact, the exact opposite, that the "alternate lines", i.e. the intelligence reports indicating the film as the cause, were disproven.

=Uncool-

[D H]

I would like to see your sources. I am betting that it will be from a liberal media source.

Oh, please. I don't rely on MSNBC any more than I do Fox News. Both are biased. That said, MSNBC did not win a lawsuit by saying that lying is within their rights. The courts found that lying and distorting the news is indeed within their rights, and Fox aggressively exercises their rights. That said, there are some absolute whoppers out their in the ultra right wing media with regard to Benghazi that even Fox won't touch.

 

 

People still believe it was the video? Man we must still be in the Stone Ages(irony detected).

That's not what DH said.

That is not what I said. Nobody thinks that now. It was terrorists, plain and simple. The issue at hand is how long it took the intelligence agencies to disentangle all of the hints that this attack on the Benghazi consulate was related to all of those other protests and lesser attacks on 9/11 that most definitely were related to that video. Getting the intelligence straight took a couple of weeks. That's not a long time. That is in fact an incredibly short period of time.

 

Sources:

Read the extract from the DNI statement I already posted in post #367 as a starter. Read the entire statement. The link is there.

Edited November 20, 2012 by D H

[uncool]

Unity: If I missed some claims, please point them out.

 

DH, would you mind pointing out exactly where each of the claims I mentioned were cited from? Specifically, would you mind citing specific quotes for each? I agree that almost all of the claims I mentioned were there, but specific quotes make it easier to demonstrate it. Further, do you have a citation for the $330 million claim?

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Before we strangle each other over a game of semantics, have any of you seen this laughable piece of crap that somehow supposedly propagated those four murders in Benghazi? Sicko's make fun of our religious freedoms here in America almost on a daily basis with Christians being largely the brunt of most jokes. But what are we becoming when our own rights can't be defended, yet we kiss up to another countries religious beliefs that this movie presumedly provided the boiling point for killing our envoys? Astonishing! It wasn't very well done, and only cute; in a sick way.

[/url] Edited November 21, 2012 by imatfaal
Embedded video changed to link

[D H]

Unity: If I missed some claims, please point them out.

 

DH, would you mind pointing out exactly where each of the claims I mentioned were cited from? Specifically, would you mind citing specific quotes for each? I agree that almost all of the claims I mentioned were there, but specific quotes make it easier to demonstrate it. Further, do you have a citation for the $330 million claim?

=Uncool-

1) That false rumor [i.e. "The commanders of the soldiers that went to Libya were interviewed and they even said that these Navy Seals had to volunteer because Obama refused to give support to the Ambassador."] has been refuted a number of times.

 

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood, though, denied the claims that requests for support were turned down.

"We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi," she said. "Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades."

You can find this exact statement at many sources. You can even find it at Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/ Note: This story at Fox News has been heavily edited. The transcript and the video no longer match. The original story (watch the video), for example, has Glen Doherty at the consulate. He was in fact part of the support sent from Tripoli. Fox added that bit in later on, but now they contradict themselves. That support from Tripoli falsifies Fox's claim that all requests for support were denied. The original story also does not include that denial by Jennifer Youngblood. How could it? She issued that statement after this mostly false story came out.

 

There are plenty of other people, in and out of the administration, who deny this particularly nasty rumor. However, you won't find these on Fox News. It's an inconvenient truth.

 

 

2) That the CIA originally made the connection [between the film and the protests, and the protests and the killing].

 

The attack that killed four Americans in the Libyan consulate began as a spontaneous protest against the film “The Innocence of Muslims,” but Islamic militants who may have links to Al Qaeda used the opportunity to launch an attack, CIA Director David Petreaus told the House Intelligence Committee today according to one lawmaker who attended a closed-door briefing.

 

This was what David Petraeus' told Congress on September 14. See http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/al-qaeda-took-advantage-of-libyan-protest-cia-chief-says/

 

 

3) That the CIA later "refuted this initial intelligence".

I already gave my source for this in post #367. Note that the DNI statement is September 28, 17 days after the attack:

 

Here's the truth of the matter, from http://dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ODNI_Benghazi_Statement_9.28.2012.pdf:

As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

 

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. However, we do assess that some of those involved were linked to groups affiliated with, or sympathetic to al-Qa'ida. We continue to make progress, but there remain many unanswered questions. As more information becomes available our analysis will continue to evolve and we will obtain a more complete understanding of the circumstances surrounding the terrorist attack.

There were no lies, just incomplete intelligence that of course evolved as more information came in.

 

 

4) The $330 million cut.

 

After poking around a bit more, it looks my statement of 22% cut is not correct. There are apparently two line items in the State Department budget related to embassy defense; I only found the bigger line item. Also, the final cut was not quite $330 million; the Senate restored some of the administration's request. Here's what CNN had to say on this, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/index.html:

 

Statement:

Biden: "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."

 

The facts:

According to Democratic House Oversight Committee staff, the amount that the GOP-led House passed for two accounts that pay for embassy security in fiscal 2012 ($2.311 billion) was $330 million less than the Obama administration had requested ($2.641 billion).

 

A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.

 

However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.

 

Conclusion:

The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target.