Who really killed our Ambassador to Libya?

[Phi for All]

I keep hearing lame assed poormouth excuses justifying those murders to the point where they gag me, but I just ain't buying it no more than those congressional panels doing the investigating.

Ahhhh, here we have it at last. You think we're making "excuses justifying those murders". Since no one here has tried to excuse the actions of the terrorists who attacked the embassy, you must be accusing President Obama of murder.

 

That means I'm done with this thread until the investigation is over and Congress has a chance to weigh in. It's pointless to discuss it further with you now, rigney.

 

 

And your friend? Thank him for his service, but his opinions are no more than those of us poor slobs still here in the dark.

I told him, and he said you're welcome, and asked me to tell you your knowledge of military procedure seems outdated and lacks sound judgement. He would never trust you to watch his back.

[rigney]

I'll not question your decision to drop from the discussion, but I am offended that you are trying to make me out as the goat of this boondoggle. My initial questions were: Who, when, how and why. That was a week after the murders and no one seemed to know squat about it. Do I think this administration was and is still culp[ible? From top to bottom! But please don't include the gardner and dish washer. But when something sounds like a fart, smells like a fart and the potential perpitrator smiles and walks softly from the room, you can take bets on who blew it. Since I don't know your friend, I'm sorry he feels that way. I've known many a good soldier, but none who wouldn't accept even a wimp when in harms way and threatened.

Edited November 25, 2012 by rigney

[overtone]

So I guess you mean "At least some people high up in government (maybe including the President?) got it wrong."

That is where the mind reading needs avoiding. No guessing - it's too easy to divert.

 

 

Do I think this administration was and is still culp[ible? From top to bottom! But please don't include the gardner and dish washer.

Who else do we exclude? Do we exclude the Republicans who worked so hard to cut security funding ? The military advisers involved?

 

If we want to treat this kind of event as criminal negligence by administration officials, and prosecute, shouldn't we start with the more serious ones? Especially since we have had time to sift data and follow implications on many of the more or less recent past .

[D H]

navigator and rigney:

Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said.

 

The problem here is many posters fail to see the obvious and claim that facts have been debunked.

You are correct. There are two or three such posters who fail to see the obvious and claim facts that have been debunked. You and rigney are amongst that lot.

 

There were previous attacks in Benghazi.

Hindsight and cherry picking are such handy devices. This is an invalid line of attack. For it to be valid, the authors would have had to have shown that:

• This one attack on the US consulate three months prior to 9/11 attack was somehow connected with the 9/11 attack. They didn't. This is guilt by association.
  
• The prior attacks on Benghazi were out of proportion to those on other installations. If the threats were merely on par with those elsewhere, this just becomes a matter of balancing resources.
  
• Shown that these out of the normal and actionable threats were known to and ignored by the highest levels. Otherwise this just becomes at worst a matter of bureaucratic bungling.

 

Bureaucratic bungling is not an impeachable offense. Many Presidents have bungled their entire way through their terms. Properly marshaling a constrained budget is not an impeachable offense. Dealing with competing cries for a limited resource is what Presidents, good and bad, have to do.

 

 

There were warnings of more attacks to come.

Once again, hindsight and cherry picking are such very nice devices. False reporting is even nicer. With regard to the first claim, your link is wrong. Secondly, the video from al-Zawhiri was vague and non-specific. al-Zawhiri has denied responsibility for the attack, and he has not been arrested. Which claim is right? This is why we have investigations rather than witch hunts. Finally, the report in The Independent is false. The administration and Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, dispute this report. It's false.

 

 

Security was reduced in Benghazi weeks before 9\11.

Also false. From http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us-embassy-in-libya-sought-extension-of-essential-security-team/:

The SST was enlisted to support the reopening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.

 

What did happen is that the Libyan team asked for additional security. They were indeed denied this request. Apparently this rejection came from a midlevel manager, and it apparently was not bubbled up the hierarchy. Should it have been? Possibly. Would the answer still have been no? Possibly. The administration was dealing with a constrained budget.

 

 

I have posted links previously that show the streets were quiet shortly before the attack, The State Dept., CIA chief stationed in Tripoli and the president of Benghazi all said it was a terrorist attack, within 24 hours, and made no mention of a mob protest in Benghazi. So who came up with the mob protesting a video talking points? Maybe the re-election committee?

Oh, please. We've been over this before. Stop being dense. (Yes, I am raising the ire of the moderators and I am probably going to get a warning. So be it.) You are being extremely dense here. Read up on the huge impacts of that video across the Muslim world. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims. Here's a map of some of the protests that that video caused: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0.

 

 

 

Ahhhh, here we have it at last.

At last? This has been the intent from day 1. It's downright disgusting, isn't it?

 

 

You think we're making "excuses justifying those murders". Since no one here has tried to excuse the actions of the terrorists who attacked the embassy, you must be accusing President Obama of murder.

 

That means I'm done with this thread until the investigation is over and Congress has a chance to weigh in. It's pointless to discuss it further with you now, rigney.

I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

[rigney]

navigator and rigney:

Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said.

 

You are correct. There are two or three such posters who fail to see the obvious and claim facts that have been debunked. You and rigney are amongst that lot.

 

Hindsight and cherry picking are such handy devices. This is an invalid line of attack. For it to be valid, the authors would have had to have shown that:

• This one attack on the US consulate three months prior to 9/11 attack was somehow connected with the 9/11 attack. They didn't. This is guilt by association.
  
• The prior attacks on Benghazi were out of proportion to those on other installations. If the threats were merely on par with those elsewhere, this just becomes a matter of balancing resources.
  
• Shown that these out of the normal and actionable threats were known to and ignored by the highest levels. Otherwise this just becomes at worst a matter of bureaucratic bungling.

 

Bureaucratic bungling is not an impeachable offense. Many Presidents have bungled their entire way through their terms. Properly marshaling a constrained budget is not an impeachable offense. Dealing with competing cries for a limited resource is what Presidents, good and bad, have to do.

 

Once again, hindsight and cherry picking are such very nice devices. False reporting is even nicer. With regard to the first claim, your link is wrong. Secondly, the video from al-Zawhiri was vague and non-specific. al-Zawhiri has denied responsibility for the attack, and he has not been arrested. Which claim is right? This is why we have investigations rather than witch hunts. Finally, the report in The Independent is false. The administration and Mike Rogers, the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, dispute this report. It's false.

 

Also false. From http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us-embassy-in-libya-sought-extension-of-essential-security-team/:

The SST was enlisted to support the reopening of Embassy Tripoli, to help ensure we had the security necessary as our diplomatic presence grew. When their rotation in Libya ended, Diplomatic Security Special Agents were deployed and maintained a constant level of security capability. So their departure had no impact whatsoever on the total number of fully trained American security personnel in Libya generally, or in Benghazi specifically.

 

What did happen is that the Libyan team asked for additional security. They were indeed denied this request. Apparently this rejection came from a midlevel manager, and it apparently was not bubbled up the hierarchy. Should it have been? Possibly. Would the answer still have been no? Possibly. The administration was dealing with a constrained budget.

 

Oh, please. We've been over this before. Stop being dense. (Yes, I am raising the ire of the moderators and I am probably going to get a warning. So be it.) You are being extremely dense here. Read up on the huge impacts of that video across the Muslim world. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims. Here's a map of some of the protests that that video caused: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201645180959880549419.0004c9a894dfb66defab9&msa=0.

 

At last? This has been the intent from day 1. It's downright disgusting, isn't it?

 

I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

Yes, perhaps we should leave it to more cooler and qualified heads. But disgusting? Other than some very crude remarks, no. But then, I just loved this little statement of yours.

navigator and rigney:

Would you *please* learn how to properly use quote tags? You have made it very hard to comment on what you said.

Also:

I, too, am done with this thread. I suggest it be locked until the investigations are over.

Edited November 26, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

FYI

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/04/benghazi_talking_points_cia_not_white_house_watered_down_public_account.html

 

Regarding what Rice said: "it was the the CIA and not the White House that scrubbed any mention of al-Qaida from the Benghazi talking points."

[rigney]

FYI

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/04/benghazi_talking_points_cia_not_white_house_watered_down_public_account.html

 

Regarding what Rice said: "it was the the CIA and not the White House that scrubbed any mention of al-Qaida from the Benghazi talking points."

It isn't hard to believe. This kind of thing likely precedes Benedict Arnold's treachery. But in all honesty, when I opened the post my questions were just that, questions. Only later did they become political. Eventually this will go away and we will find something new to chew on.

Edited December 8, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Bravo, rigney. A perfect example of how to insinuate and mislead without actually saying anything, always leaving you the option to say "I'm not declaring anything, just saying what I'm thinking!"

=Uncool-

[Moontanman]

Bravo, rigney. A perfect example of how to insinuate and mislead without actually saying anything, always leaving you the option to say "I'm not declaring anything, just saying what I'm thinking!"

=Uncool-

 

 

this is rigney's game, his rules and his ball, if we keep playing we will always lose, heads he wins tails we lose...