Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    The issues are
    1) What happened, what do we know?
    2) Was there a cover up, does it matter?
    3) Has the media done it's job?
    4) Repercussions

    -What happened-
    The facts are that some months ago a group of men attacked and killed a U.S. Diplomat and 3 other Americans. After the attack the administration set out to paint the group as protestors reacting to an internet video.

    Fact #1
    It was not a protest of an internet video. The consulate never reported a protest, but reported an attack.

    Fact #2
    The white house talking points were edited from correct information to incorrect information over the course of many revisions. (Link)

    Fact #3
    The white house is basically saying it doesn't matter what happened only that we fix it and make sure this never occurs again.

    Fact #4
    The post that was attacked had asked for more security and did not receive it.


    Between the gap of what the white house said happened, and what is coming out to have actually happened, there is the distinct possibility of a cover up. Fact #2 strongly supports that at the very least there was strong enough political will to hope it wasn't terror attack, that they would error on the side of a ridiculous claim that an internet video was the cause and not terrorism on 911.

    ---Accusations & Testimony--

    There have been several

    Accusations #1
    A stand down order was given to troops who were supposed to depart while fighting was occurring, which prevented them from responding. (Link) This is an "accusation" because whistle blowers are saying it occurred, while those in charge are saying it did not occur.

    What is a fact regardless of the truth of the accusation is that the response was poor and could have been better.

    Accusation #2
    There is a cover up by the white house designed to minimize the knowledge of gov failure in this situation.


    ---Has the media covered this well?--

    Now the first question is, if this were Bush as president would this have been covered differently? *J*, we all know it would have been wall to wall for the past 8months.

    So, considering the possibility of multiple lies regarding high offices of gov, considering the level of incompetence actually revealed. Doesn't that merit more investigation by the media than simply accepting whatever the gov says?



    ---Repercussions and speculation---
    1) Was there a cover up?
    2) If there was, how big of a deal should it be considered? Should we talk impeachment?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  2. Likes Apokalupsis, Squatch347 liked this post
  3. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    I do think that this would receive a lot more attention if it was the Bush administration- there's really no two ways about that. This incident would fit a lot more snuggly in the media narrative of the Bush admin, which was characterized by implications of dogma and belligerence, than the Obama admin, which is presented more as pragmatism.

    However, I do not think you are being accurate by saying that the only WH response is "it doesn't matter." The actual response is (from the article you linked):

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said: "What we said and what remains true to this day is that the intelligence community drafted and redrafted these points."
    He defended administration claims that the faulty statements were merely the product of incomplete intelligence in a rapidly changing environment. Despite the excerpts, he stood by claims that White House involvement was minimal.
    "The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this. But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive. They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from 'consulate' to 'diplomatic facility' and the like," he said.



    This seems to be a fairly accurate statement, given what we know about the revisions so far.


    I think Fox New's counter-narrative of a hugely cynical and secretive WH is just as inaccurate as the the network's, just in the opposite direction. Calls for impeachment will almost certainly go nowhere, for more reasons than just media presentation. Personally, I am not (yet) surprised/shocked/irate yet about this, but then again I am a liberal who voted for Obama, and am also fairly cynical.

    Despite accusations of being left-leaning (which are mostly unfounded, though vary from program to program), I would recommend NPR's coverage. At the very least they usually have reasonable representatives of both sides of the issue, and the moderators stay out of the discussion a hell of a lot more than any of the Tv networks.
    -AuspiciousFist-
    Super Moderator

  4. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  5. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by FIST
    However, I do not think you are being accurate by saying that the only WH response is "it doesn't matter." The actual response is (from the article you linked):
    So given carnies Quote...
    How is it not essentially saying.
    It doesn't matter that we got it wrong. (IE, support troops couldn't have gotten there in time anyway)
    It doesn't matter that what we said wasn't really the case. (IE, That it wasn't protestors angry at a video)
    It doesn't matter that we actively advocated a scenario that wasn't even though we had reason to think otherwise (IE, edited talking points)

    Carnie says that was all part of the process.
    That they said what wasn't the case and edited the talking points and were simply wrong about it. Nothing to see.. lets move on.
    It doesn't matter that poor decisions regarding security lead to the death of a citizen (IE, it was so long ago)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Here is my thoughts on this subject.

    1. The media has covered it from day one till now, I heard the hearings covered on NPR this week. I've been hearing about it from major news outlets all spring and winter since it happened. I especially see it covered in more conservative media who honestly won't stop screaming about it much less reporting on it. Anyone who doesn't know about it simply isn't paying attention to politics. (which is a good many Americans of course)

    2. The administration got the information in their talking points wrong, but then again they aren't precognitient either so mistakes are going to happen with violent events taking place half a world away. They tried to get out with info ASAP and they got it wrong. The fact is there was an attack on the Embasy in Cairo just before this that was directly related to a video and the news covered it heavily. This happened right after and there was some confusion or thoughts it was related. It wasn't, but its not exactly a crazy notion. What they should have done is kept more tight lipped about why they think it happened and stick to what happened.

    3. Are they covering up a mistake? Sure, everyone covers their ass when they screw up. That's normal, and double normal for politics. Are they straight up lying? There isn't all that much evidence to show that. Its more spin than lies from what I've read on it.

    4. As to the soldiers not dispatched. Those guys were guarding other people from what I understand. And if your calling the shots and you know folks are being attacked, do you abandon posts for some people to go respond to others in a situation where your not totally sure what is happening? Maybe, maybe not. Its a judgement call. Do you follow orders or react to the situation more dynamically. People make mistakes in combat, they make the wrong call sometimes. You have to be held to it but its not exactly a scandal. Its easy to say in hindsight what might have been the better call, but in those shoes at the time, is it an easy call? I'm not so sure.

    5. As for protection for the embassy, well their is plenty of blame to go all around. Most Embassies in the middle east and many other parts of the world face a constant threat. Its why they have guards and walls and such. how much is enough, how much is too much, how much can we afford, etc... all legit questions. We know again in hind sight it was not enough. Nor was the security in Cairo. But the state department doesn't have infinite funds. They in fact are always on a tight budget and military personnel aren't cheap. Both democrats and republicans cut the budgets and argued for more security for them. In the end the penny pincers won, and the diplomats lost. Meanwhile I bet there are lots of embassies still trying to get more security. I wonder if they have or not. How much would you spend on each embassy for security? How would you know its enough? Not easy questions to answer.

    6. Impeachment should be for huge errors in judgement or outright illegal activity. Nothing illegal here. Making a screw up in your talking points is not a huge error in judgement. This is not by any means the first time Americans have died at an embassy.
    Look at the list...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...tic_facilities

    Benghazi is not even all that significant an attack. 8 killed in 2010, 24 in 2008, 224 in 1998

    As a political issue, this is far more ******** than substance. Embassies are always under some threat, unless we turn them into military compounds, which they are not supposed to be, our diplomats lives are on the line. And they have, and will continue to die in service to the country in the name of peace. This attack was not by any means unusual or especially disastrous compared to recent history when Islamic militants, enemies of peace, decide to attack the west.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  8. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    1. The media has covered it from day one till now, I heard the hearings covered on NPR this week. I've been hearing about it from major news outlets all spring and winter since it happened. I especially see it covered in more conservative media who honestly won't stop screaming about it much less reporting on it. Anyone who doesn't know about it simply isn't paying attention to politics. (which is a good many Americans of course)
    Do you think it was covered in the same manner it would have been covered if Bush was in office?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    2. The administration got the information in their talking points wrong, but then again they aren't precognitient either so mistakes are going to happen with violent events taking place half a world away. They tried to get out with info ASAP and they got it wrong. The fact is there was an attack on the Embasy in Cairo just before this that was directly related to a video and the news covered it heavily. This happened right after and there was some confusion or thoughts it was related. It wasn't, but its not exactly a crazy notion. What they should have done is kept more tight lipped about why they think it happened and stick to what happened.
    Well, the facts say that they got it RIGHT, then changed it to something wrong without good reason and against stronger evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    3. Are they covering up a mistake? Sure, everyone covers their ass when they screw up. That's normal, and double normal for politics. Are they straight up lying? There isn't all that much evidence to show that. Its more spin than lies from what I've read on it.
    That seems a bit dismissive, I mean that is also a valid point regarding Water-Gate. Right?

    I think the question is, if it was a mistake (which it was because I don't think they wanted people to die, only that they allowed their HOPE to CHANGE their rational thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    4. As to the soldiers not dispatched. Those guys were guarding other people from what I understand. And if your calling the shots and you know folks are being attacked, do you abandon posts for some people to go respond to others in a situation where your not totally sure what is happening? Maybe, maybe not. Its a judgement call. Do you follow orders or react to the situation more dynamically. People make mistakes in combat, they make the wrong call sometimes. You have to be held to it but its not exactly a scandal. Its easy to say in hindsight what might have been the better call, but in those shoes at the time, is it an easy call? I'm not so sure.
    Well, that would make some sense...If they thought it was a terrorist attack from the start. If they thought it was an impromptu protest, then there is no reason to suspect that the other place would come under attack as well.
    I think accepting this as a reason means having your cake and eating it too. They either got it wrong from the start.. or had it right and changed it against reason.

    That reason is very relevant to the severity of the "covering of their mistake". If the change was politically motivated, that is wrong and should be punished.
    If it was an honest mistake through the fog of war, then not so much.

    Unfortunately the evidence points more to the former.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    6. Impeachment should be for huge errors in judgement or outright illegal activity. Nothing illegal here. Making a screw up in your talking points is not a huge error in judgement. This is not by any means the first time Americans have died at an embassy.
    Look at the list...
    No one is seeking impeachment for errors in judgment. Or even for the death of ambassadors.
    It is about the lying and cover-up.

    If it was incompetence, that FACT that people died means they SHOULD own up to it.. and if not, then they should be held accountable for not wanting to own up to it.
    Don't you agree?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  10. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you think it was covered in the same manner it would have been covered if Bush was in office?
    Yes or less so, though which groups howl the loudest and about what would change.

    While bush was president there were 12 attacks on our embassies around the world and among them 61 casualties. How many of those do you remember being covered much less covered for months on end? I don't remember any of them much at all and I am something of a news hound.

    Well, the facts say that they got it RIGHT, then changed it to something wrong without good reason and against stronger evidence.
    I think saying they got it right is a bit of a misnomer. They were closer to the truth when they started, and farther from it by the time they delivered their talking points. Keep in mind the Cairo attacks were on the same day, and there was an attack in Yemen. Its not a shocker that within a short time of these events they thought they might be related and the Cairo attack had clear indication it was a protest for a film, while the Benghazi one had no declared motives. They thought it was a coordinated effort, but it turns out it wasn't. They were seperate events happening at the same time and both Islamist attacks on embassies. What if they said they were not related and it turned out they were? Same egg on their face. They made a call, its not a crazy call under the circumstances, and it was wrong.

    That seems a bit dismissive, I mean that is also a valid point regarding Water-Gate. Right?
    Yes and no. In Watergate there was a criminal act committed and hard evidence linking the president of the united states to it. In Benghazi there was a number of different bad judgement calls with no direct evidence the president made those decisions himself. Its pretty different in a number of ways.

    I think the question is, if it was a mistake (which it was because I don't think they wanted people to die, only that they allowed their HOPE to CHANGE their rational thinking.
    Hope of what? Again, consider yourself getting reports of 3 embassy attacks, you know one of them has fatalities/kidnap victims, you know another involved people protesting an anti-Islamist film, and you know little of the third. different people tell you different stories based on the scant information you know. you have to give a press conference ASAP tot he american people letting you know you are on top of this situation. You think hope is an over riding decision factor here? It just doesn't make sense. Its balls to the walls clutch decision making with multiple sources of incomplete information. You do your best and you make your move.

    Well, that would make some sense...If they thought it was a terrorist attack from the start. If they thought it was an impromptu protest, then there is no reason to suspect that the other place would come under attack as well.
    But the commanders at the time were making split second decisions. They may or may not have even known about Cairo, they only knew there was an attack on an Embassy in progress, and they made a call at the moment to move forces guarding other positions or not. They chose not to. Remember, lots of individuals with their own responsibilities and limited information making on the ground decisions. Its not some super well orchestrated planned thing where you have a single clear picture of what is happening with one person calling all the shots.

    I think accepting this as a reason means having your cake and eating it too. They either got it wrong from the start.. or had it right and changed it against reason.
    So you have never made a decision, then second guessed and were mistaken in second guessing it? I know I've been there and done that. (Especially when my wife is the one doing the second guessing )

    That reason is very relevant to the severity of the "covering of their mistake". If the change was politically motivated, that is wrong and should be punished.
    If it was an honest mistake through the fog of war, then not so much.
    Unless you get some clear piece of communication that declares it political, you really won't know so its beating a dead horse. We know the fog of war was there, whether it was at fault or some calculation you can't really say. But what political advantage is there in claiming the wrong information when you know full well the truth will come out? Whatever you might think of Obama, he's not that dumb.

    Unfortunately the evidence points more to the former.
    I have not seen clear evidence of motive, nor the murder weapon. All there is is circumstantial evidence and the body. You know in hindsight the talking point was wrong. You know the accurate information existed (but also that much inaccurate information also existed). And that's about it. If it were a court case you would have almost nothing to prosecute with.

    No one is seeking impeachment for errors in judgment. Or even for the death of ambassadors.
    It is about the lying and cover-up.
    Lying is not an impeachment offense. Many presidents have lied about many things. Sometimes its their job to do that. And covering up mistakes, that happens all the time too. If that were our impeachment standard we'd probably have to have impeached nearly every US president.

    If it was incompetence, that FACT that people died means they SHOULD own up to it.. and if not, then they should be held accountable for not wanting to own up to it.
    Don't you agree?
    Again, the press talking points didn't kill anyone and that seems to be the #1 point you have against them. As to the mistakes that did lead to deaths, well again, those are snap judgements and I don't see any of them as being gross incompetence nor directly the choices made by Obama himself. And deaths at embassies sadly rather common, and thus the fact someone died doesn't mean someone made a blunder so much as despite our precautions, something bad happened. Not that you don't count it as a mistake, but its not a gross error if you follow.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    While bush was president there were 12 attacks on our embassies around the world and among them 61 casualties. How many of those do you remember being covered much less covered for months on end? I don't remember any of them much at all and I am something of a news hound.
    Well first of all Condi Rice had our ambassadors very well guarded. They were treated like the president as I understand it.
    It was a particular point of strength with the bush admin.

    So I would have to ask, what mistakes lead to the attacks under bush? If none, then they are not comparable situations. Wouldn't you agree?

    Other than that, maybe the Media was too busy doing their count down to 1000 dead troops.. then 2000.. then 3000... then 4000.
    Remember how closely they kept count?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think saying they got it right is a bit of a misnomer. They were closer to the truth when they started, and farther from it by the time they delivered their talking points. Keep in mind the Cairo attacks were on the same day, and there was an attack in Yemen. Its not a shocker that within a short time of these events they thought they might be related and the Cairo attack had clear indication it was a protest for a film, while the Benghazi one had no declared motives. They thought it was a coordinated effort, but it turns out it wasn't. They were separate events happening at the same time and both Islamist attacks on embassies. What if they said they were not related and it turned out they were? Same egg on their face. They made a call, its not a crazy call under the circumstances, and it was wrong.
    That it is terrorist activity doesn't mean it is connected.. but it does mean it is a terrorist attack.
    They went from "it is a terrorist attack" (IE correct) to
    It was a protest (IE wrong)

    So, I think you misunderstood what I mean by "correct" and "wrong" or you are spinning it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes and no. In Watergate there was a criminal act committed and hard evidence linking the president of the united states to it. In Benghazi there was a number of different bad judgement calls with no direct evidence the president made those decisions himself. Its pretty different in a number of ways.
    I don't think that addresses my point at all.
    I said that pointing out that it is natural to cover things up, does not address the real problem because serious offenses try to cover up.
    So you are being dismissive by making the point, or it is irrelevant because it doesn't help to establish sevarity, or to clear one from sevearity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Hope of what? Again, consider yourself getting reports of 3 embassy attacks, you know one of them has fatalities/kidnap victims, you know another involved people protesting an anti-Islamist film, and you know little of the third. different people tell you different stories based on the scant information you know. you have to give a press conference ASAP tot he american people letting you know you are on top of this situation. You think hope is an over riding decision factor here? It just doesn't make sense. Its balls to the walls clutch decision making with multiple sources of incomplete information. You do your best and you make your move.
    First- So then as they got it wrong in this "balls to walls clutch" situation.. They suck and are not a "clutch" situation..
    Would you agree?

    Second- I have to say that is pretty pathetic IMO. Here he is in a position where he is supposed to manage an entire multi theater, multi front war (and other have)... and his crew can't handle a few hundred people in different locations without losing their minds and getting everything wrong?
    Please. that is an appeal to absolutely incompetence to make things "better". It should never be accepted, the idea things were that intense is to lose site of the real scope of the job the pres has.

    Considering the level of the game.. he needs to put his big girl panties on and man up.

    Third- On a scale from 1 - 10 how "intense" was this situation.. compare that to D-Day invasion and Droping the bomb being a 10, and throwing the first pitch a 1.


    Fourth- Answering the hope question..
    Yes, they were hoping that it wasn't ANOTHER terrorist attack. They were hoping it wasn't connected, because they had POLITICAL pressures to error on that side.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    But the commanders at the time were making split second decisions. They may or may not have even known about Cairo, they only knew there was an attack on an Embassy in progress, and they made a call at the moment to move forces guarding other positions or not. They chose not to. Remember, lots of individuals with their own responsibilities and limited information making on the ground decisions. Its not some super well orchestrated planned thing where you have a single clear picture of what is happening with one person calling all the shots.
    O yea, because Obama was sleeping through it... right?
    No they had a situation room up, with real time observation.

    The testimony was that ONLY Hillary or the Pres could issue the stand down orders/ that were given.
    IF that is incorrect please support who else had the authority so that I can understand this situation better.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So you have never made a decision, then second guessed and were mistaken in second guessing it? I know I've been there and done that. (Especially when my wife is the one doing the second guessing )
    Because the CIA developed the report, and then the pres office "second guessed" it.

    All I want to know is the REASON,

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Unless you get some clear piece of communication that declares it political, you really won't know so its beating a dead horse. We know the fog of war was there, whether it was at fault or some calculation you can't really say. But what political advantage is there in claiming the wrong information when you know full well the truth will come out? Whatever you might think of Obama, he's not that dumb.
    What do you mean the "truth" would come out? How would he know that? How would WE know that?
    As far as I'm concerned that media hasn't covered him honestly from day 1, so that assumption is not one I share with you.
    Consider all the soft ball questions that they asked Hillary on the matter, considering how they covered the election when things were not known
    in Benghazi, the media wasn't even interested.

    So no.. I don't think "he knew things would come out", and I don't think he would be "dumb" for assuming things wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I have not seen clear evidence of motive, nor the murder weapon. All there is is circumstantial evidence and the body. You know in hindsight the talking point was wrong. You know the accurate information existed (but also that much inaccurate information also existed). And that's about it. If it were a court case you would have almost nothing to prosecute with.
    If the Intelligence says it was terrorist, and you put out something else.
    Yes that does point to a cover. You would have to present a reasonable reason to SUSPECT the video at all.
    The only reason is a political one, or I haven't heard it.

    So, what reason (other than political) was there for the white house to CUT OUT all the terrorist references in the CIA/FBI (whoever) report
    and insert the video?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Lying is not an impeachment offense. Many presidents have lied about many things. Sometimes its their job to do that. And covering up mistakes, that happens all the time too. If that were our impeachment standard we'd probably have to have impeached nearly every US president.
    Right, so then it is because the lying is to cover INCOMPETENCE or worse.
    Unless all the presidents who were ever impeached came right out and never lied about their impeachable offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Again, the press talking points didn't kill anyone and that seems to be the #1 point you have against them.
    That is not the part I was referring too.
    I was referring to not sending troops and giving the stand down order. If it was the fog of war and they got it wrong, they SHOULD say they got it wrong.
    Consider the pres asked Bush what was his biggest mistake as president.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    As to the mistakes that did lead to deaths, well again, those are snap judgements and I don't see any of them as being gross incompetence nor directly the choices made by Obama himself. And deaths at embassies sadly rather common, and thus the fact someone died doesn't mean someone made a blunder so much as despite our precautions, something bad happened. Not that you don't count it as a mistake, but its not a gross error if you follow.
    I don't think you addressed the point of the question at all.
    I asked if they should own up to those mistakes BECAUSE people died in the process.

    If I made a mistake and someone in your family died because of it.. I at least should own up to it, even if the mistake was understandable?
    Agree or disagree?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If I made a mistake and someone in your family died because of it.. I at least should own up to it, even if the mistake was understandable? Agree or disagree?
    I agree MT and here's why. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces and according to his job title, it is his job to send people to their death, and when he does so, it is also his job to defend that decision. This, to me at least, is another test for him to see if he will be honorable. The office he holds certainly is honorable. I think the issue would ago away if he just came out from behind the cloak of plausible deniability and said "mistakes were made and the buck stops with me." That would be the honorable thing to do.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  13. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE
    I agree MT and here's why. Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces and according to his job title, it is his job to send people to their death, and when he does so, it is also his job to defend that decision. This, to me at least, is another test for him to see if he will be honorable. The office he holds certainly is honorable. I think the issue would ago away if he just came out from behind the cloak of plausible deniability and said "mistakes were made and the buck stops with me." That would be the honorable thing to do.
    I think if he did that there would be no possibility for a "scandal" to begin with... at least regarding this issue. Because at that level of the game mistakes DO lead to deaths. Thousands have died due to mistakes of other pres. America can handle that, but we can't accept the denial and trying to escape responsibility.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  14. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Obama did say this during one of the debates: "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home."

    That sounds exactly like what you were asking for.

    ---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well first of all Condi Rice had our ambassadors very well guarded. They were treated like the president as I understand it.
    It was a particular point of strength with the bush admin.

    So I would have to ask, what mistakes lead to the attacks under bush? If none, then they are not comparable situations. Wouldn't you agree?
    If Americans died, a mistake was made. As human beings we accept that we will not perform perfectly, and that some situations are so complicated, perfection is unlikely. We make value calls on what is a reasonable or practical level of error. Many more died during the Bush administration than during the Obama administration. I would say the attention to this incident is at least partly political. The right is always determined to attack the left and vice versa. They will focus on whatever they see as the biggest weakness. For Bush Jr they left did not focus individual bombings but on the overall war on terrorism. Here the right is focused on a specific event.

    Other than that, maybe the Media was too busy doing their count down to 1000 dead troops.. then 2000.. then 3000... then 4000.
    Remember how closely they kept count?
    A lame excuse. When in war there are two things you should always be aware of as an informed voter.
    1. How well we are meeting our military objectives
    2. How many american lives is it costing. (and to a lesser degree how much american treasure it is costing)

    In reporting on casualties and war efforts the media is playing a valuable role in keeping the public informed of vital decision making information.

    That it is terrorist activity doesn't mean it is connected.. but it does mean it is a terrorist attack.
    They went from "it is a terrorist attack" (IE correct) to
    It was a protest (IE wrong)
    I was explaining how such a mistake could be made, not whether it was made. It is clear they made an error in judging that it was protest related for a time. No one is disputing that.

    I don't think that addresses my point at all.
    I said that pointing out that it is natural to cover things up, does not address the real problem because serious offenses try to cover up.
    So you are being dismissive by making the point, or it is irrelevant because it doesn't help to establish sevarity, or to clear one from sevearity.
    It matters what you are covering up, not that you were covering it up, unless you lie under oath. Lying is not generally a crime, but there are specific circumstances where it is. And what you lie about and to whom informs whether or not you are in the zone of criminal behavior. If Obama lies about how he wrote a speech, its not something anyone can do anything about except be angry. If he lies to congress under oath, then he is in violation of the law. Impeachment doesn't require a crime, but its one of the more accepted justifications for it. Simply lying or (covering up) is not.

    First- So then as they got it wrong in this "balls to walls clutch" situation.. They suck and are not a "clutch" situation..
    Would you agree?
    Its not clear to me what you are saying. They made an error, that is well known.

    Second- I have to say that is pretty pathetic IMO. Here he is in a position where he is supposed to manage an entire multi theater, multi front war (and other have)... and his crew can't handle a few hundred people in different locations without losing their minds and getting everything wrong?
    Flip that around. They are engaged in a muli theater, multi front global war, and they make a mistake in one of a huge number of operations?

    Considering the level of the game.. he needs to put his big girl panties on and man up.
    He did. (see earlier post) you just aren't really interested in him doing that so you pay it no mind when it happens. You have a story you want to tell about this president, and you will select the information that best fits that story.

    Third- On a scale from 1 - 10 how "intense" was this situation.. compare that to D-Day invasion and Droping the bomb being a 10, and throwing the first pitch a 1.
    You can speak accurately to that if you were there, you weren't, neither was Obama.

    Fourth- Answering the hope question..
    Yes, they were hoping that it wasn't ANOTHER terrorist attack. They were hoping it wasn't connected, because they had POLITICAL pressures to error on that side.
    Why? There are still lots of terrorist attacks all over the world. No one is claiming they wiped out Islamic terrorism. The fact is, there was a riot based on that video the exact same day and we live in a global connected world where attacks and protests are often coordinated. Its not that weird a conclusion to make with disparate information. But thinking that pretending something was or was not a terrorist attack does nothing substantial for anyone.

    O yea, because Obama was sleeping through it... right?
    No they had a situation room up, with real time observation.
    Obama is not a military sergeant, he makes executive decisions, not tactical ones. He doesn't order individual soldiers to do anything. Specific orders are going to come from the chain of command.

    The testimony was that ONLY Hillary or the Pres could issue the stand down orders/ that were given.
    Show me evidence of that since you are making the claim.

    All I want to know is the REASON,
    You never will, not with certainty. Nor should you really care all that much. they ahd the info wrong for a fairly short time, and they got it corrected. What matters far more is what security precautions we intend to take to prevent such a situation in the future. If you actually care about the lives of american diplomats, that should be the focus. What are we doing to correct the mistakes? Not "who ****ed up the press release and why?"

    What do you mean the "truth" would come out? How would he know that? How would WE know that?
    With investigation of course.

    As far as I'm concerned that media hasn't covered him honestly from day 1, so that assumption is not one I share with you.
    Well I doubt you would ever be satisfied unless they all declare Obama the anti-christ who has done nothing but evil since he took office. "The press" is not some monolithic single entity. And "The press" has been hitting this story from every imaginable angle since it first came on the air. With seems to really be the problem is that the sober consensus doesn't agree with your suspicions.

    So no.. I don't think "he knew things would come out", and I don't think he would be "dumb" for assuming things wouldn't.
    Then you have been shown to be wrong. Care to revise your assessment based on the fact that it remains a top news story 6 months later with a major congressional investigation?

    If the Intelligence says it was terrorist, and you put out something else.
    Again, you treat intelligence like there is only one statement and it is always accurate. Most intelligence comes with competing views and you have to use judgement to sift through it.

    Yes that does point to a cover. You would have to present a reasonable reason to SUSPECT the video at all.
    It was known to be a source of other protests/attacks on US embassies the same day, and there was no claim of responsibility by the usual terrorist groups who very often do claim responsibility for such things. That's a start.

    The only reason is a political one, or I haven't heard it.
    Have you done an investigation of the matter or are you just listening to what right wing political bloggers are telling you?

    So, what reason (other than political) was there for the white house to CUT OUT all the terrorist references in the CIA/FBI (whoever) report
    and insert the video?
    Because they thought that was what happened at the time.

    Right, so then it is because the lying is to cover INCOMPETENCE or worse.
    Unless all the presidents who were ever impeached came right out and never lied about their impeachable offense.
    Then you have to show incompetence or illegal activity. So far you haven't. Messing up a press report is not exactly a horror. And attacks on embassies are not exactly rare and often result in casualties. You have nothing that is illegal or all that unusual to blame Obama for here.

    That is not the part I was referring too.
    I was referring to not sending troops and giving the stand down order. If it was the fog of war and they got it wrong, they SHOULD say they got it wrong.
    He did.

    Obama
    "The government is a big operation and any given time, something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what's broken and you fix it."
    "When four Americans get killed, it's not optimal. We're going to fix it. All of it."

    I don't think you addressed the point of the question at all.
    I asked if they should own up to those mistakes BECAUSE people died in the process.
    Did bush Own up for every american diplomat that died during his presidency, was he even asked to?

    If I made a mistake and someone in your family died because of it.. I at least should own up to it, even if the mistake was understandable?
    Agree or disagree?
    Agree.
    If I did would you acknowledge that I did?
    If I didn't would you impeach me?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Obama did say this during one of the debates: "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home."

    That sounds exactly like what you were asking for.
    That is the Rehtoric, but where was the actions?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If Americans died, a mistake was made.
    Not True.
    D-Day americans died.. but it was not due to a mistake.

    So the question stands.. what MISTAKE was made?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    As human beings we accept that we will not perform perfectly, and that some situations are so complicated, perfection is unlikely. We make value calls on what is a reasonable or practical level of error. Many more died during the Bush administration than during the Obama administration. I would say the attention to this incident is at least partly political. The right is always determined to attack the left and vice versa. They will focus on whatever they see as the biggest weakness. For Bush Jr they left did not focus individual bombings but on the overall war on terrorism. Here the right is focused on a specific event.
    That is a lot of rehtoric that doesn't answer the question of what mistake.
    Lets suppose for a moment that we agree that in hind site it was a mistake to NOT send the forces earlier.

    Is the administration saying that? nope.
    So what you are talking about there is not very relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A lame excuse.
    Wait.. what excuse?
    My point was that 1) The media was using the very large issue of dead troops as a way to hammer the administraion.
    2) That focus detracted from any POSSIBLE, failures regarding situations similar to bengahzi.

    There is no EXCUSE offered.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When in war there are two things you should always be aware of as an informed voter.
    1. How well we are meeting our military objectives
    2. How many american lives is it costing. (and to a lesser degree how much american treasure it is costing)

    In reporting on casualties and war efforts the media is playing a valuable role in keeping the public informed of vital decision making information.
    The media made a spectacle of the body count. Portraying it as simply informing the voters is to not have watched the news at the time IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I was explaining how such a mistake could be made, not whether it was made. It is clear they made an error in judging that it was protest related for a time. No one is disputing that.
    Then you are offering red-herrings to the discussion.
    Unless it WAS a reason, then you shouldn't even bring it up. Or unless you are forwarding that it was an ACTUAL reason.
    Otherwise you are just setting up a moving goal post.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It matters what you are covering up, not that you were covering it up, unless you lie under oath.
    and how the hell are we to know how serious IF THEY COVER IT UP!?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Lying is not generally a crime, but there are specific circumstances where it is.
    Lying for political gain IS wrong.
    LYING for national security is not..
    Clearly it was the former that was occuring.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Its not clear to me what you are saying. They made an error, that is well known.
    But to what extent, and who is responsible is being COVERED UP! IE hidden.
    They are not bringing that info forward and trying to stand in the way of those trying to find out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Flip that around. They are engaged in a muli theater, multi front global war, and they make a mistake in one of a huge number of operations?
    I was refering to WWII.

    Other than that, there is no flipping it around until their failure is admitted and established for it's extent.

    Say for example that obama was sleeping through this one(litterally), how many other did he take active part in?
    If only a hand full, then it is MUCH more serous that he slept through it instead of doing his job.
    Now compare to WWII, If they take part in thousands, and sleep through a few hundred.. Well, they actually had to sleep sometime and the war didn't stop for them.
    So it isn't really as agregious.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He did. (see earlier post) you just aren't really interested in him doing that so you pay it no mind when it happens. You have a story you want to tell about this president, and you will select the information that best fits that story.
    What earlier post? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
    Second, I was attacking YOUR characterization that there is some Whirl wind of faced pace decission making that meant mistakes where inevitable.
    I was saying that this si small ball in contrast with past levels of oppperations, and that failure on this level is a knock against his ability all together.

    It was not an attack saying he wasn't taking responsibility at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You can speak accurately to that if you were there, you weren't, neither was Obama.
    cop out.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Why? There are still lots of terrorist attacks all over the world. No one is claiming they wiped out Islamic terrorism. The fact is, there was a riot based on that video the exact same day and we live in a global connected world where attacks and protests are often coordinated. Its not that weird a conclusion to make with disparate information. But thinking that pretending something was or was not a terrorist attack does nothing substantial for anyone.
    It is when your intellegence agency says otherwise.

    Your acting as though the intelligence agency (IE the people who should know) gave equal weight to both answers.
    that was not the case. The administration went agianst strong evidence that turned out to be correct.
    No reason has been given as to why, thus the claim that they were HOPING is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Obama is not a military sergeant, he makes executive decisions, not tactical ones. He doesn't order individual soldiers to do anything. Specific orders are going to come from the chain of command.
    Right, but you can't claim ignorance as you have.
    You are claiming a fog of war line, when having real time video makes that less reasonable as a response.

    If it wasn't Obama, then it was someone else.. i'm fine with that, but we can know who that person was.

    You are simply dismissing the situation as though it is par for the course.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Show me evidence of that since you are making the claim.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...enghazi-Attack

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    ultimately, only the President of the United States, or someone acting on his authority, could have prevented Special Forces either on the ground or nearby from helping those Americans who were under deadly assault.
    ...
    I know that a direct question was asked in the hearings and the answer was Hillary (the link above says obama).
    I can't find that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You never will, not with certainty. Nor should you really care all that much. they ahd the info wrong for a fairly short time, and they got it corrected.
    No, because for weeks after Obama would not direclty call it a terrorist attack.
    Second the only reason I never will is if they don't explain it, and the only reason to not explain it, is to hide it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What matters far more is what security precautions we intend to take to prevent such a situation in the future. If you actually care about the lives of american diplomats, that should be the focus. What are we doing to correct the mistakes? Not "who ****ed up the press release and why?
    Unless the press release was messed up because the administration didn't want it to be a terrorist act, and that influenced their decission making.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    With investigation of course.
    because the white house investigating itself (essentially) is a particularly effective way of getting the truth out?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Well I doubt you would ever be satisfied unless they all declare Obama the anti-christ who has done nothing but evil since he took office. "The press" is not some monolithic single entity. And "The press" has been hitting this story from every imaginable angle since it first came on the air. With seems to really be the problem is that the sober consensus doesn't agree with your suspicions.
    If the sober consensus is to not push for actual answers.. then yes.

    Also, I don't think Obama is the anti-christ. But there really is no question that he media hasn't covered him honestly, because they avoid big stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Then you have been shown to be wrong. Care to revise your assessment based on the fact that it remains a top news story 6 months later with a major congressional investigation?
    How does that substantiate that he KNEW it would come out?
    And how does 8 months of everyone but Fox basically forgetting the story and down playing it NOT prove my point?

    Now if everyone covered it like fox then maybe you would have a point... but they didn't and you don't.

    Further, that the media TIRED and failed to ignore the story for 8 months, doesn't mean Obama would have been foolish to think they would have succeeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Again, you treat intelligence like there is only one statement and it is always accurate. Most intelligence comes with competing views and you have to use judgement to sift through it.
    Then you can or should offer what was the factor that made them go with one over another.
    So far you have offered your personal speculation, but have not connected that to the pres.
    It may be that YOUR reasonig is good.. but it doesn't mean the White house had good reason.
    This because you are content to offer hypotheticals to warrent your writting off the situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It was known to be a source of other protests/attacks on US embassies the same day, and there was no claim of responsibility by the usual terrorist groups who very often do claim responsibility for such things. That's a start.
    Support

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Because they thought that was what happened at the time.
    That is not an answer. Why did they think that?
    See we are trying to discuss REASON, not feelings, and your response only supports my assertion that it was HOPE.
    Because without a REASON (and you offered none) that is all it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Then you have to show incompetence or illegal activity. So far you haven't. Messing up a press report is not exactly a horror. And attacks on embassies are not exactly rare and often result in casualties. You have nothing that is illegal or all that unusual to blame Obama for here.
    I have shown incompetence, and they have admitted to it. IE your appeal to mistakes were made.
    Unless those mistakes are justified with reason, then they are due to incopetence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He did.

    Obama
    "The government is a big operation and any given time, something screws up. And you make sure that you find out what's broken and you fix it."
    "When four Americans get killed, it's not optimal. We're going to fix it. All of it."
    That is saying SOMETHING went wrong, it is not saying WHAT whent wrong.
    It is a cop out answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Did bush Own up for every american diplomat that died during his presidency, was he even asked to?
    They asked Bush what mistake he regretted most WHILE HE WAS STILL PRES.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Agree.
    If I did would you acknowledge that I did?
    If I didn't would you impeach me?
    Sure, but the pres hasn't.
    No of course not, mistakes happen and High level mistakes = High level consiquences.











    No spell check for you.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  16. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Obama did say this during one of the debates: "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home."
    During the debates they were parading the blame on a video, not mistakes that were made on the ground. There's been no owning up and taking responsibility by the White House for the mistakes that were made for not defending American lives in Benghanzi once the video idea wasn't working and more information surfaced about the actual event.

    Why can't Obama, as the Commander-and-Chief-of U.S. forces, follow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lead and take responsibility for the incident and the decision to stand down instead of defending the Embassy and American lives?

    Washington (CNN) -- In an interview with congressional investigators, a former top diplomat in Libya expressed concern that more could have been done by the military on September 11-12 last year to protect those being attacked at the U.S. compound and annex in Benghazi, Libya.

    Specifically, Greg Hicks wondered why the military did not send a plane into Libyan airspace as a show of force, and why four U.S. Special Operations soldiers were not permitted to travel to Benghazi on a Libyan plane the morning of September 12.

    The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hear from Hicks and others in a Wednesday hearing on the Benghazi tragedy, which ended in the deaths of four Americans -- U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

    The committee's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, told CNN Monday that Hicks, who was the U.S. deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attack, "is going to testify that from the get-go, he knew this was a terrorist attack and communicated that to the White House, to the State Department, to anyone that would listen before, during, and after."

    Issa asserted that the Obama administration's "talking points" afterward -- specifically the statements by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, which did not acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack, "had an effect on our diplomatic relations" with Libya and "was an unnecessary error.

    He said he wants to know "who made the decision to change the talking points in a way that caused the American people to be lied to.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politi...-whistleblower
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  18. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the Rehtoric, but where was the actions?
    What actions are you expecting exactly? You said he didn't admit responsibility, and I showed you a clear statement where he claimed responsibility. Now you say "ya but where are the actions" When in this debate did you say anything about actions? Your dancing all over the place here. I show you directly wrong, you change the subject. It's in-genuine. Again, you have something you want to believe and you will stick to it no matter what. Fine by me but it makes for weak argument.

    Not True.
    D-Day americans died.. but it was not due to a mistake.
    You think no mistakes were made on D-Day?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...gs_in_Normandy
    "Efforts of the early wave of pathfinder teams to mark the drop zones were partially ineffective. The first serial, assigned to DZ A, missed its zone and set up a mile away near St. Germain-de-Varreville. The team was unable to get either its amber halophane lights or its Eureka beacon working until the drop was well in progress. Although the second pathfinder serial had a plane ditch in the sea en route, the remainder dropped two teams near DZ C, but most of their marker lights were lost in the ditched airplane. "

    Lots of mistakes got made and lots of them cost lives. That's how war is. Just because you win doesn't mean you didn't make mistakes along the way.

    That is a lot of rehtoric that doesn't answer the question of what mistake.
    Well if we had 8 months of news coverage and multiple investigations into them I might be able to tell you. But honestly there are only fairly direct statements about how the attacks occurred and who died. So I can't tell you.

    Lets suppose for a moment that we agree that in hind site it was a mistake to NOT send the forces earlier.
    Is the administration saying that? nope.
    How can we hold the Obama administration responsible for something we suppose? That makes no sense. Obama said straight up that things did not go well, and that he takes responsibility. He did not publicly talk about exactly what mistakes were made other than the talking points. To say you know what would or would not have been better is to claim something impossible. It was a battle, two battles in fact. Exactly what would happen if you did something different is just prognostication. We can weight probabilities but you just don't know. If Obama claims he in hindsight can say that commanders made bad decisions, then he comes over like a blowhard armchair general. Unless the mistakes are clear as day, its not easy to gainsay.

    My point was that 1) The media was using the very large issue of dead troops as a way to hammer the administraion.
    And my point is the media is supposed to report on war casualties. Its not a political tool or an attack on the administration to report how many people are dying in a war. Its a duty to inform the public of important facts, how many lives are lost in the war being undertaken. What would be a scandal is if they kept that information a secret.

    The media made a spectacle of the body count. Portraying it as simply informing the voters is to not have watched the news at the time IMO.
    I as a general rule don't watch TV news, its mostly **** for people who can't be bothered to read. That said, its still their duty to report it. It is one of the two most important pieces of information for the public to know during war.

    and how the hell are we to know how serious IF THEY COVER IT UP!?
    Investigation.

    Lying for political gain IS wrong.
    LYING for national security is not..
    Clearly it was the former that was occuring.
    No, its not clear. In fact I was just listening to a report on the emails released and it is clear that the report that the event was sparked by the video and protest in Cairo comes directly from the CIA, not from the white house. The white house removed direct mention of Alkeda because they have a standing policy not to name responsible parties while investigation is still under way.

    But to what extent, and who is responsible is being COVERED UP! IE hidden.
    Apparently the CIA director who prepared the talking points for the white house is responsible. It is not covered up, it is now known.

    They are not bringing that info forward and trying to stand in the way of those trying to find out.
    When you are the target of a witch hunt, you really shouldn't work to help the hunters. Nor should you let them be the priority when you actually have an investigation and a plan of action to improve security as greater priorities.

    Other than that, there is no flipping it around until their failure is admitted and established for it's extent.
    Failure was admitted MT. They regret not being better prepared, and they regret not being able to save the lives of the diplomat and CIA personnel that died. There are plenty of errors identified and admitted to. Its just that they are not some kind of epic failure or gross incompetence you might be hoping for.

    Say for example that obama was sleeping through this one(litterally), how many other did he take active part in?
    We know that he was not sleeping through it so I've no idea what you are getting at. The simple state of affairs was this event went badly. Mind you it could have been much worse, there were well more than 100 militia with artillery and vehicles attacking 7 people initially, and than a fair bit more at the second location. We lost 4 people and they lost quite a lot more. Ideally no one dies on our side but that doesn't always work out. In hindsight a lot of folks think they could do better, but they were not there and get to armchair command an imagined conflict they were not part of.

    What earlier post? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
    The posts were merged.

    Second, I was attacking YOUR characterization that there is some Whirl wind of faced pace decission making that meant mistakes where inevitable.
    I was saying that this si small ball in contrast with past levels of oppperations, and that failure on this level is a knock against his ability all together.

    It was not an attack saying he wasn't taking responsibility at all.
    Obama "I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home."

    It is when your intellegence agency says otherwise.
    Ya, thing is the CIA is who told the administration it was video related, so your argument on this point is toast.v
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bengh...7#.UZWdJbWG18E
    "All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA."

    Right, but you can't claim ignorance as you have.
    You are claiming a fog of war line, when having real time video makes that less reasonable as a response.
    Real time video doesn't let you read peoples minds MT. It might offer clues but it doesn't let you know peoples intentions, only what they are doing. They knew it was an attack, and by quite a lot of militia. That doesn't tell you if it was premeditated or spontaneous or what particularly inspired them. Nor is it really all that important compared to what you do about the attack.

    If it wasn't Obama, then it was someone else.. i'm fine with that, but we can know who that person was.
    Probably, if you bother to find out...

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05...proving/193981
    "During the May 8 congressional hearings on the Benghazi attacks, witness Gregory Hicks -- who was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks -- explained that his team had proposed that a small group of four special forces troops leave Tripoli to provide aid in Benghazi, but that they were not authorized to do so by Special Operations Command Africa, a division of the U.S. military:"

    "REP. ROBIN KELLY: You said that four military personnel were told not to the board that plane and that this call came from Special Operations Command Africa. Is that right?

    HICKS: That's what I understand."

    That would be these guys...
    http://www.africom.mil/about-the-com...commands/socaf

    Led by this guy
    http://www.africom.mil/about-the-com...ship/commander

    So he or one of his commanders was the one who made the call.

    You are simply dismissing the situation as though it is par for the course.
    What I am doing is research. One of the pillars of debate. I wouldn't say any battle is par for the course exactly.

    LOL, so Mr mystery source with no credentials or known occupation is your evidence? Sorry if I don't find that to be all that reliable a source. Were talking about 4 soldiers here, who were guarding an embassy that also was threatened with attack, who wanted to board a plane that ended up being used to evacuate people after the attack was over. Its hard to say that was the critical decision that resulted in the 4 deaths, especially since one of the casualties was already dead by then and the others died from a mortar attack in a siege. These 4 soldiers were going to stop a siege from a cargo plane? Soldiers did arrive and re-enforce the annex, and they came by plane as well but the airport is not in the annex so it took a while for them to get there. The cargo plane they wanted to get on didn't get there until after the second attack. Sorry but I just don't see this particular argument as proof of some huge mistake nor any solid evidence it was Obama's decision.

    No, because for weeks after Obama would not direclty call it a terrorist attack.
    Dude, that's bull.
    Here is what Obama announces the day after the attack...
    "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

    He uses the same language again and again. The cause of the attack, what sparked it, or whether it was premeditated does not change the fact it is terrorism, and is an attack.
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/...ack-statements

    Just check the facts before you say stuff like that.

    If the sober consensus is to not push for actual answers.. then yes.
    Is it warm down there with your head in the sand? The have this thing called the internet, where you can read all about the many efforts to investigate this story. You seem to be aware of it since you have all this supposed "evidence" like that guy who we don't know at all who he is. ugh...

    Also, I don't think Obama is the anti-christ. But there really is no question that he media hasn't covered him honestly, because they avoid big stories.
    If the media didn't cover these stories.... you wouldn't know they exist. So you are obviously and demonstrably wrong.

    And how does 8 months of everyone but Fox basically forgetting the story and down playing it NOT prove my point?
    You want me to link stories by other agencies in the last 8 months that aren't fox? I could post hundreds of them. That is just plain ********. Why you have convinced yourself of it I don't know. But a quick Google search will turn up hundreds and hundreds of posts in other news sources about Benghazi. Their audience is perhaps the most interested so they perhaps cover it the most, but they are far from alone.

    Support

    Sure

    1. THe video was known to be the motivation for the Cairo attack earlier that day
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1874247.html
    "CAIRO, Sept 11 (Reuters) - Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and pulled down the American flag during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.

    In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger", a Reuters reporter said.

    Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, protesters tore it up, with some showing off small pieces to television cameras. Then others burned remains.

    "This movie must be banned immediately and an apology should be made ... This is a disgrace," said 19-year-old, Ismail Mahmoud, a member of the so-called "ultras" soccer supporters who played a big role in the uprising that brought down Hosni Mubarak last year."

    2. Evidence no one claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack

    Here I admit failure. There was a claim in fact (as evidenced by the just released emails) but the administration had a policy not to finger suspect groups until investigations were complete, which were still under way at the time. But an Al Asria (or something like that) did post on facebook claiming they were responsible.

    None the less the CIA advised the president it was spontaneous and inspired by the video.

    I have shown incompetence, and they have admitted to it. IE your appeal to mistakes were made.
    Unless those mistakes are justified with reason, then they are due to incopetence.
    Reasons have been offered. They didn't think the additional forces (4 gurads) would have have ensured anyone safety and possibly would endanger the safety of those they were guarding. The main objective at that time appeared to be evacuation, not pushing more people into the situation.

    That is saying SOMETHING went wrong, it is not saying WHAT whent wrong.
    It is a cop out answer.
    You tell me. I'm only saying that when lives are lost, something has gone wrong, a mistake has been made and a better outcome was likely possible. In this case the likely best move would have been to evacuate the personnel before the attack since they were aware of heightening dangers in the area. That would almost surely guarantee no one would have been killed. But they didn't have a crystal ball to see in the future so its not a case of clear incompetence.

    They asked Bush what mistake he regretted most WHILE HE WAS STILL PRES.

    "Barack Obama said he makes mistakes on an hourly basis as President but stood firmly behind his administration's work in bolstering the U.S. economy and jobs market.
    The President was in Las Vegas to champion investment in clean energy, declaring the U.S. 'the Saudia Arabia of natural gas' in a speech to UPS workers.
    However in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer last night, he said: 'I second-guess constantly… I make a mistake, you know, every hour, every day.'"

    That's obama talking to Barbra Walters, Here is Bush's answer

    "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it," Bush joked before taking a long pause.
    "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have,” Bush rambled. “I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

    Now to be fair, later Bush cited his "Mission Accomplished" moment as one of his biggest mistakes, also his "Dead or Alive" call on Bin-Ladin. Obama cites trying to negotiate with the right instead of taking the fight to them, though that interview was before all this stuff.

    Sure, but the pres hasn't.
    Patently false as I have shown.

    No of course not, mistakes happen and High level mistakes = High level consiquences.
    The voters are the ones that enact consequences on politicians. We had our chance and we re-elected him.

    ---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    During the debates they were parading the blame on a video, not mistakes that were made on the ground. There's been no owning up and taking responsibility by the White House for the mistakes that were made for not defending American lives in Benghanzi once the video idea wasn't working and more information surfaced about the actual event.

    Why can't Obama, as the Commander-and-Chief-of U.S. forces, follow Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lead and take responsibility for the incident and the decision to stand down instead of defending the Embassy and American lives?
    Lives were defended, many were attacked, only 4 died, while many many more died among the attackers. Reinforcements were dispatched to defend the annex and they succeed. Two of the casualties were from the re-enforcements. 4 Guards at a another site under threat were told to remain there. The plane they wanted to take didn't get there until after the attack was over and was used to evacuate people from the site to prevent further loss of life.

    So basically you have no clue what you are talking about.

    As to the talking points, those came from the CIA.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What actions are you expecting exactly? You said he didn't admit responsibility, and I showed you a clear statement where he claimed responsibility. Now you say "ya but where are the actions" When in this debate did you say anything about actions? Your dancing all over the place here. I show you directly wrong, you change the subject. It's in-genuine. Again, you have something you want to believe and you will stick to it no matter what. Fine by me but it makes for weak argument.
    One would be an investigation that asked hard questions. When the investigation did have Hillary, they didn't ask her any real questions.

    So the reason why I say it is simply rhetoric, is because his administration did not act as one really taking responsibility. They did not quickly release info.

    That is not a weak position, that is one that is not fooled by a single line in a speach and acting as though it is anything more the speech.

    Just like when he associated the act with terroism once, then spent weeks saying it was due to a video. It is simply unreasonable to say that he truly attributed it to terrorism.
    It's playing politics with the issue and is the DEFINITION of not taking responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You think no mistakes were made on D-Day?
    OF course not.
    Are you saying that NOTHING went right/as planned and that no one died when it did?

    I mean, the general plan was to run over open ground towards armed opponents.

    Remember the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Well if we had 8 months of news coverage and multiple investigations into them I might be able to tell you. But honestly there are only fairly direct statements about how the attacks occurred and who died. So I can't tell you.
    EXACTLY.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    How can we hold the Obama administration responsible for something we suppose?
    Well, if they truly took responsibility for something, then we wouldn't have to suppose.. right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That makes no sense. Obama said straight up that things did not go well, and that he takes responsibility. He did not publicly talk about exactly what mistakes were made other than the talking points. To say you know what would or would not have been better is to claim something impossible. It was a battle, two battles in fact. Exactly what would happen if you did something different is just prognostication. We can weight probabilities but you just don't know. If Obama claims he in hindsight can say that commanders made bad decisions, then he comes over like a blowhard armchair general. Unless the mistakes are clear as day, its not easy to gainsay.
    I don't see how you are missing the obvious problem with this.
    First you hold that Obama took responsibility, but then say that we can't suppose anything because we don't know.
    So what exactly did Obama take responsibility for?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And my point is the media is supposed to report on war casualties. Its not a political tool or an attack on the administration to report how many people are dying in a war. Its a duty to inform the public of important facts, how many lives are lost in the war being undertaken. What would be a scandal is if they kept that information a secret.
    That is ridiculous. The idea that such information CAN'T POSSIBLY be used as a political hammer is naive.
    you are basically saying that the media can't possibly use their job to effect politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I as a general rule don't watch TV news, its mostly **** for people who can't be bothered to read. That said, its still their duty to report it. It is one of the two most important pieces of information for the public to know during war.
    I agree..but that doesn't mean it wasn't made a spectacle for the purpose of hurting the pres or turning the people against the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, its not clear. In fact I was just listening to a report on the emails released and it is clear that the report that the event was sparked by the video and protest in Cairo comes directly from the CIA, not from the white house. The white house removed direct mention of Alkeda because they have a standing policy not to name responsible parties while investigation is still under way.
    That still doesn't jutify striking all references to terroism at all.
    Also apparently susan rice is the one who inserted the Internet video. (from the link below)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Apparently the CIA director who prepared the talking points for the white house is responsible. It is not covered up, it is now known.
    support (Because I haven't read it, and it seems pretty relevant).

    Also, how can you say there is no cover up, when the white house says they only changed one word, and that is demonstrably not true.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When you are the target of a witch hunt, you really shouldn't work to help the hunters. Nor should you let them be the priority when you actually have an investigation and a plan of action to improve security as greater priorities.
    How dare anyone investigate! ..
    O wait.. that is how you said we were to find out if they were covering anything real.

    so now, you are just assuming it is a witch hunt.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Failure was admitted MT. They regret not being better prepared, and they regret not being able to save the lives of the diplomat and CIA personnel that died. There are plenty of errors identified and admitted to. Its just that they are not some kind of epic failure or gross incompetence you might be hoping for.
    That you think failure was admitted it just sad. Becuase you have accepted such general non-specific statments as actual acceptence of responsibility.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...EOhGkY0#t=341s
    "lets not bicker and argue about who killed who".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    We know that he was not sleeping through it so I've no idea what you are getting at. The simple state of affairs was this event went badly. Mind you it could have been much worse, there were well more than 100 militia with artillery and vehicles attacking 7 people initially, and than a fair bit more at the second location. We lost 4 people and they lost quite a lot more. Ideally no one dies on our side but that doesn't always work out. In hindsight a lot of folks think they could do better, but they were not there and get to armchair command an imagined conflict they were not part of.
    REALLY!.. artillary at a protest!
    Geez, they take that seriously.

    Do you realize how ridiculous your position seems (to say there was no cover up) when there was artillary at an event the White house called a Protest?
    As they say..that dog don't hunt. Yet the white house was able to advocate it for days/weeks and it isn't considered a cover up.

    You know what.. fine, they weren't covering anything up. They are just really, really, really stupid and nieve.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ya, thing is the CIA is who told the administration it was video related, so your argument on this point is toast.v
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bengh...7#.UZWdJbWG18E
    "All 12 versions of the talking points, as previously reported by ABC News, say that the attack in Benghazi was "spontaneously inspired by protest in Cairo." In other words, all the talk of protests – which proved to be wrong – started with the CIA."
    But nothing of a internet video. That was my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Real time video doesn't let you read peoples minds MT. It might offer clues but it doesn't let you know peoples intentions, only what they are doing. They knew it was an attack, and by quite a lot of militia. That doesn't tell you if it was premeditated or spontaneous or what particularly inspired them. Nor is it really all that important compared to what you do about the attack.
    Why don't you think artillary being present = premeditated?





    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Probably, if you bother to find out...
    I know.. how dare I start a thread to investiage the matter. How dare I ask questions. The nerve.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    LOL, so Mr mystery source with no credentials or known occupation is your evidence? Sorry if I don't find that to be all that reliable a source. Were talking about 4 soldiers here, who were guarding an embassy that also was threatened with attack, who wanted to board a plane that ended up being used to evacuate people after the attack was over. Its hard to say that was the critical decision that resulted in the 4 deaths, especially since one of the casualties was already dead by then and the others died from a mortar attack in a siege. These 4 soldiers were going to stop a siege from a cargo plane? Soldiers did arrive and re-enforce the annex, and they came by plane as well but the airport is not in the annex so it took a while for them to get there. The cargo plane they wanted to get on didn't get there until after the second attack. Sorry but I just don't see this particular argument as proof of some huge mistake nor any solid evidence it was Obama's decision.
    Sorry, was that part of Black Hawk down artistic license?
    I just figured that 4 soldiers with night vision and the element of surpise could have done a LOT of damage. Especially if they had air support (even a fly by).
    As it was a hand full of guys were holding off hundreds (as you said before).

    Maybe I just give the military guys too much credit. Maybe even if it were a suicide mission and those were the 4 guys that died, that they would have done it gladly because it is their job.

    O and as for MR Mystery source.. He got the chain of command right.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Dude, that's bull.
    Here is what Obama announces the day after the attack...
    "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
    Yea, that "..." is important. give the full quote if you want to offer it as evidence.

    If I remember correctly that "..." represents him talking of the OTHER terror attacks. So the only link is that they are next to each other in a paragraph, not that he DIRECTLY and CLEARLY calls it terrorist acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Just check the facts before you say stuff like that.
    Stop spinning and it would be more clear. the "langauge" is in fact always the same, and that is to difflect attributing terrorism DIRECTLY to bengazi (in the days direclty following).


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Is it warm down there with your head in the sand? The have this thing called the internet, where you can read all about the many efforts to investigate this story. You seem to be aware of it since you have all this supposed "evidence" like that guy who we don't know at all who he is. ugh...
    Object to the substance if at all. other wise you are simply decrying a COMMON media practice.
    If not naming your source was not par for the course then you would have some ground to critizie my link on those grounds.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If the media didn't cover these stories.... you wouldn't know they exist. So you are obviously and demonstrably wrong.
    False, as you noted the interent does exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    "Barack Obama said he makes mistakes on an hourly basis as President but stood firmly behind his administration's work in bolstering the U.S. economy and jobs market.
    The President was in Las Vegas to champion investment in clean energy, declaring the U.S. 'the Saudia Arabia of natural gas' in a speech to UPS workers.
    However in an interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer last night, he said: 'I second-guess constantly… I make a mistake, you know, every hour, every day.'"

    That's obama talking to Barbra Walters, Here is Bush's answer

    "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it," Bush joked before taking a long pause.
    "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have,” Bush rambled. “I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one."

    Now to be fair, later Bush cited his "Mission Accomplished" moment as one of his biggest mistakes, also his "Dead or Alive" call on Bin-Ladin. Obama cites trying to negotiate with the right instead of taking the fight to them, though that interview was before all this stuff.
    Sooo.. was Obama ASKED what his biggest mistake was?
    Also, Bush actually named one.. where is Obama's specifically named mistake?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You tell me. I'm only saying that when lives are lost, something has gone wrong, a mistake has been made and a better outcome was likely possible.
    And I already destroyed that notion. WWII was full of thing that went generally to plan where people died.
    It simply isn't the case that deaths = mistakes.
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 17th, 2013 at 07:07 AM. Reason: hashtag
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #15
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Probably, if you bother to find out...
    But that is an untruthful answer. First, the operators in question are part of SOCOM, Special Operations Command, not AFRICOM. SOCOMAF, the group in question is a coordinating house. The only troops under their command are A-Team type SF units that train local nationals, not Direct Action Teams (DATs) that do kinetic operations like this. Those are housed under SOCOM. Further, those types of troops operate at the National Command Authority level, not the COCOM level, so SOCOMAF has no ability to direct where they go and when.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that is an untruthful answer. First, the operators in question are part of SOCOM, Special Operations Command, not AFRICOM. SOCOMAF, the group in question is a coordinating house. The only troops under their command are A-Team type SF units that train local nationals, not Direct Action Teams (DATs) that do kinetic operations like this. Those are housed under SOCOM. Further, those types of troops operate at the National Command Authority level, not the COCOM level, so SOCOMAF has no ability to direct where they go and when.
    So you are saying Hicks lied to congress? This is the guy everyone on the right is super supportive of as their star whistle blower. And personally I didn't see anything that make him out as a liar. Think its possible there is information you don't yet know but he might, considering he was stationed with the 4 guards who got the stand down order? I respect your knowledge of the military but he was there at the time. Not that he is beyond misunderstanding but in this case, I would take him as the more expert on what happened.

    And to me it sounds like these guards may well have been A-Team types from the sound of how they were gearing up to roll in on the situation. That's speculation but it seems to fit the scenario and would further explain why they weren't given leave to go on this type of mission.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Lives were defended,
    Right, they were defended by some ex navy seals who ended up going there to help get people to safety, even though they were told to not to go, but they went anyway. And when they asked for back up support multiple times and none came, they died. There's some accountability there by the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.

    Reinforcements were dispatched to defend the annex and they succeed.
    What air support was dispatched and succeeded? It didn't come from the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, which is only an hour flight from Libya. It didn't come from Aviano or Souda Bay other nearby bases which could of easily sent some fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships as a show of force. It's one thing when you can't do something as you're watching a live tragic event unfold from 'a situation room' if you don't have the resources to help. It's completey another thing when you have the capability, including the eyes on the ground through cameras, and the resources and the power to help defend lives --- and yet you choose to do nothing.

    So basically you have no clue what you are talking about.
    Does this comment imply that you know what you're talking about?

    As to the talking points, those came from the CIA.
    What's wrong with the CIA?
    Last edited by eye4magic; May 17th, 2013 at 09:01 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  23. Likes Someguy liked this post
  24. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Right, they were defended by some ex navy seals who ended up going there to help get people to safety, even though they were told to not to go, but they went anyway.
    Brave, but it didn't save any lives, only put them in danger. Not to say they made a mistake not to go, but it didn't actually accomplish anything at the time.

    And when they asked for back up support multiple times and none came, they died. There's some accountability there by the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.
    They actually got backup from a group that came in from Tripoli in the early morning along with some Libyan forces and they successfully defended the CIA annex until it could be evacuated. Two people died in the defense as they were hit by a mortar.

    What air support was dispatched and succeeded?
    None, though its far from clear than the jets they had available in range would have accomplished all that much. Air superiority fighters aren't all that great at supporting a ground defense. Its something but would it have saved the lives of men from a mortar, hard to say that it would with any confidence.

    It didn't come from the large Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, which is only an hour flight from Libya.
    That is exactly where the reinforcements came from actually.

    It didn't come from Aviano or Souda Bay other nearby bases which could of easily sent some fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships as a show of force.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...hazi-3#slide-4
    Air Force Special Operations Command operates the AC-130s. They permanently station these planes in Florida and New Mexico, and send the gunships out to areas of operation (AOR, meaning Afghanistan) from there. "We have AC-130s flying through Europe all the time, on the way to the AOR," says Capt. Kristen Duncan, at Special Operations Command. An AC-130 could be rerouted to Libya, but that takes more time than the embattled U.S. personnel had. The aircraft in Afghanistan were too far away to be of use in Benghazi.

    A gunship could have made a difference I think, but they were not in range for such short notice. The only planes that were are fighter jets. Again, perhaps helpful, but not a decisive tool in that situation.

    It's one thing when you can't do something as you're watching a live tragic event unfold from 'a situation room' if you don't have the resources to help. It's completey another thing when you have the capability, including the eyes on the ground through cameras, and the resources and the power to help defend lives --- and yet you choose to do nothing.
    The didn't do nothing, they organized an evacuation of the personnel as soon as they could manage it.

    Does this comment imply that you know what you're talking about?
    I do research, that is all I am claiming.

    What's wrong with the CIA?
    Did I say something was wrong with them or is this a rhetorical question of some kind? I was only noting it was the CIA that told the administration the attack was sparked by an anti islamic video.

    ---------- Post added at 02:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    One would be an investigation that asked hard questions. When the investigation did have Hillary, they didn't ask her any real questions.
    So what would you have asked her that congress didn't?

    So the reason why I say it is simply rhetoric, is because his administration did not act as one really taking responsibility. They did not quickly release info.
    What has releasing info and taking responsibility got to do with eachother? What happened was a breach in security, what they did to take responsibility was work to increase security. Releasing paperwork does not save anyone's life so far as I'm aware. Basically you just can't be satisfied no matter what they do.

    That is not a weak position, that is one that is not fooled by a single line in a speech and acting as though it is anything more the speech.
    That's right, you are so smart. no matter what they say, you know the real truth in their heart they are hiding from the world. Don't be fooled by what people tell you, hold tight to your suspicious and you can't go wrong.

    Just like when he associated the act with terroism once, then spent weeks saying it was due to a video. It is simply unreasonable to say that he truly attributed it to terrorism.
    He did no such thing. There was only a brief period where they claimed it had to due with the video and the got that information directly from the CIA intelligence report.

    It's playing politics with the issue and is the DEFINITION of not taking responsibility.
    No, the definition of responsibility is when you claim you are responsible and act like it. They took swift action to investigate the attack, to increase protection against further attacks, and to hunt down those responsible. That is pretty responsible behavior all around.

    OF course not.
    Are you saying that NOTHING went right/as planned and that no one died when it did?
    No. Are you saying Nothing went right during the Benghazi attack even though the vast majority of Americans survived and the second attack was repelled and a handfull of Americans fended off more than 100 attackers?

    I'm saying in battle you make mistakes, and people sometimes die as a result, but you can still win the battle. In benghazi there were two battles, the first a full on surprise attack that the enemy won. The second, we won, though we lost two lives in the defense.

    EXACTLY.
    Indeed, no deep investigations during bush for such attacks, but for Obama, months and months of coverage.

    I don't see how you are missing the obvious problem with this.
    First you hold that Obama took responsibility, but then say that we can't suppose anything because we don't know.
    So what exactly did Obama take responsibility for?
    He took responsibility for the deaths in the attacks.

    That is ridiculous. The idea that such information CAN'T POSSIBLY be used as a political hammer is naive.
    you are basically saying that the media can't possibly use their job to effect politics.
    I never said it couldn't be used as a political tool. I said that it would be worse to withhold the information that to share it. The fact that Americans die during war is not a political attack. Reporting on it does not constitute a political attack any more than reporting on the deaths at Benghazi is a political attack. Its simply news of import.

    I agree..but that doesn't mean it wasn't made a spectacle for the purpose of hurting the pres or turning the people against the war.
    How are you showing it is a spectacle rather than reporting? Dead people are kind of inherently spectacular. Its high drama no matter what you do. "Oh by the by, 1000 us soldiers died, and in other news, Jumbo the elephant is appearing at the zoo this week!"

    That still doesn't jutify striking all references to terroism at all.
    See now if they did that, you might have a point, but they didn't. They struck references to specific terrorist groups, not to terrorism.

    Also apparently susan rice is the one who inserted the Internet video. (from the link below)
    Your source is out of date. The actual chain of CIA memos and emails has been released and the CIA are the ones who provided that information.

    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/...rticle/2194323
    "The CIA's first unclassified assessment of the Benghazi attack said "we believe the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo,""

    This is the exact working Rice used in her infamous speech. It came directly from the CIA assessment. Now note, it doesn't say the attack was a protest, it said the attack was inspired by a protest.

    What the administration changed, were the references to specific terrorist groups. They have a policy where they don't name names if they are still performing an investigation. Basically they don't want to make specific accusations until they are certain.

    Same source
    "They're deleting references to Ansar al Sharia," a Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate whose members the CIA said it knew were involved in the attack "because that's what government bureaucrats do," Gerecht said. "They're trying to be precise, to be overly meticulous. Unless you know for sure you don't say it."

    Now in hindsight we know that the part they kept was wrong, and the part they dropped ended up being true. But we know that because as time went on the investigation turned up solid, well analyzed facts.

    Also, how can you say there is no cover up, when the white house says they only changed one word, and that is demonstrably not true.
    When exactly did the white house say that?

    How dare anyone investigate! ..
    O wait.. that is how you said we were to find out if they were covering anything real.
    so now, you are just assuming it is a witch hunt.
    I'm saying that when you are under fire, you defend yourself. When you think its a witch hunt you don't help the hunters. I'm not making a blanket judgement. I want things like this investigated. I don't expect the targets of investigation to be helpful to everyone who is after them.

    REALLY!.. artillary at a protest!
    Geez, they take that seriously.
    No one said it was a protest, they said it was an attack inspired by a protest. Pleas try at least actually reading the statements they made.

    But nothing of a internet video. That was my point.
    Dude, the protest in Cairo was about the internet video.

    Why don't you think artillary being present = premeditated?
    Because militants have artillery. Were talking about mortars here. They are very portable and easy to deploy. It does not take deep planing to use them. We know now with certainty the attack was indeed planned, but the use of mortars is not why we know that.

    I just figured that 4 soldiers with night vision and the element of surpise could have done a LOT of damage. Especially if they had air support (even a fly by).
    As it was a hand full of guys were holding off hundreds (as you said before).
    And how would they get there, teleportation? They have to fly in, and that means you land at an airport, then you need transportation from the airport to the battlefield. None of that is instantaneous. If you want to get in the field fast you need to drop in or come in by copter but they didn't have transport copters available. A group did indeed fly in and land at the airport and re-enforce the annex during a break in the fighting. It was actually after they got there that the lives were lost.

    Maybe I just give the military guys too much credit. Maybe even if it were a suicide mission and those were the 4 guys that died, that they would have done it gladly because it is their job.
    Them being glad to die doesn't make it a good idea to send them to their deaths. The question you have to ask is, do we know that it was a mistake not to send them. Are we confident that they would have made the difference between the two that died at the annex by Mortar would not have been killed. I don't think you can answer that with confidence and thus your just playing armchair general and second guessing the outcome of a battle with a small adjustment in forces.

    Yea, that "..." is important. give the full quote if you want to offer it as evidence.
    Go for it.

    If I remember correctly that "..." represents him talking of the OTHER terror attacks. So the only link is that they are next to each other in a paragraph, not that he DIRECTLY and CLEARLY calls it terrorist acts.
    So if I said that I enjoyed my breakfast and also enjoyed many other bowls of cereal, you don't understand that implies I had cereal for breakfast? If the subject is terror attacks and you are talking about Benghazi then its pretty clear you are saying Benghazi is a terror attack, not a walk in the park, or a sit in.

    Stop spinning and it would be more clear. the "langauge" is in fact always the same, and that is to difflect attributing terrorism DIRECTLY to bengazi (in the days direclty following).
    I'm not spinning ****. There were guys with machine guns, mortars, trucks, etc... no one is saying it was a political protest march. You just want to believe something that isn't true. It was and is refereed to as a terrorist attack. What was at question is what the motivation for it was.

    Sooo.. was Obama ASKED what his biggest mistake was?
    He was asked what mistakes he has made and what regrets he had.

    Also, Bush actually named one.. where is Obama's specifically named mistake?
    Not when he was asked, he named it in later interviews because he was chided for dodging the question at the time. Its really pretty far off topic at any rate.


    Argument summary
    The statement that the attack was inspired by the protest in Cairo came directly from the CIA. When the administration learned from the FBI investigation that was false, they changed their story to match that information and also named those they felt responsible.

    So you have no evidence the administration lied, what they did was follow the intelligence report with the exception of naming a specific group.

    While there may have been errors in judgement during the attack that could possibly have helped, it is far from clear that it would have saved the lives lost and ultimately the annex was successfully defended including the help of reinforcements who were among the casualties.

    At best you can speculate that perhaps different decisions might have helped out. At worst they could have led to more deaths.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  25. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    So what would you have asked her that congress didn't?
    The accountability Review Board on face the nation, on why they didn't interview Clinton.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqBwX...ayer_embedded#!
    Picking says they already knew what she would say, so they didn't need to investigate.


    IE, white wash. Or do you think it is reasonable that they didn't even bother to talk to one of the major players involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What has releasing info and taking responsibility got to do with eachother? What happened was a breach in security, what they did to take responsibility was work to increase security. Releasing paperwork does not save anyone's life so far as I'm aware. Basically you just can't be satisfied no matter what they do.
    Not at all, there are serious issues to be addressed and they are dodging addressing them or letting us even know what they are in a REAL fashion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That's right, you are so smart. no matter what they say, you know the real truth in their heart they are hiding from the world. Don't be fooled by what people tell you, hold tight to your suspicious and you can't go wrong.
    That's right, I am smart enough to actually evaluate what is being said and not drink the cool-aid.

    Why are you going to accept one line, then deny the weeks of denial that followed? Why is it that when they are caught in lie after lie it is unreasonable to ask or assert that there is some cover up for political reasons? Why should we deny parts of the exchange which SITE political reasons and concerns?
    You yourself offered a political reason as though it was reasonable.( IE they shouldn't provide info in order to beat up with it.) You are the one who thinks it is normal and acceptable to CYOA (cover your own ass) by denial, cover up and lying.. because ("that is what people do").

    Of course your approach is going to lead to trying to mock me instead of addressing the issue. Because it is intellectually dishonest and can't stand the light of real scrutiny.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He did no such thing. There was only a brief period where they claimed it had to due with the video and the got that information directly from the CIA intelligence report.
    Support!
    In fact, Rice injected that herself and the white house claimed she was reading from the report. The report itself didn't mention a video only the attacks in Ciro.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No. Are you saying Nothing went right during the Benghazi attack even though the vast majority of Americans survived and the second attack was repelled and a handfull of Americans fended off more than 100 attackers?

    I'm saying in battle you make mistakes, and people sometimes die as a result, but you can still win the battle. In benghazi there were two battles, the first a full on surprise attack that the enemy won. The second, we won, though we lost two lives in the defense.
    How can we know when on one will come out and own up to their actions and give reasons for it.
    Your explination of battle fog is a total fiction. Not becuase it didn't occur, but because it is not a reason offered.
    You are projecting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Indeed, no deep investigations during bush for such attacks, but for Obama, months and months of coverage.
    You haven't even established that they should be regarding bush.
    First, the reason we are investigating Benghazi is because they were under staffed and had protection removed before.
    and we are asking why that was done.
    Under Bush, Rice provided ample protection and there is no instance where it was requesed and denied that is relevant.

    so you can't just lump them all together with your hasty generalization fallacy.
    The reason there is a cover up here is because they refuse to honestly answer questions in order to save political face.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He took responsibility for the deaths in the attacks.
    Right, with his words But then his lackies lie at every turn, his investigation give hillary a pass.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I never said it couldn't be used as a political tool. I said that it would be worse to withhold the information that to share it. The fact that Americans die during war is not a political attack. Reporting on it does not constitute a political attack any more than reporting on the deaths at Benghazi is a political attack. Its simply news of import.
    Then you are not denying my point and are simply trying to deflect it without addressing it.

    do you want to discuss this honestly or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    How are you showing it is a spectacle rather than reporting? Dead people are kind of inherently spectacular. Its high drama no matter what you do. "Oh by the by, 1000 us soldiers died, and in other news, Jumbo the elephant is appearing at the zoo this week!"
    I am SAYING that it was made a spectacle. That they didn't simply report it, they discussed it at length daily without giving context.
    That it was used as a political hammer.

    Now, I'm not going to support that, because I feel that if you watched it occur then you should see it.
    If you disagree (which I know you will), then fine. My point was that the media was busy covering other things that were damaging to Bush for his entire presidency.
    That there isn't even necessarily a story to be missed by the media because the Bush Admin did a good job of providing security, but the context of that security allowed for such attacks to occur.

    Like wise, I don't think there would be a story here if someone hadn't pulled security to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    See now if they did that, you might have a point, but they didn't. They struck references to specific terrorist groups, not to terrorism.
    Why is that reasonable?
    If I say.
    We suspect it is Terroirst Group A
    or maybe Terror group B
    or maybe Terror group C

    Then why would you struck all the A,B,C references, and then not say it was "terrorist" related?

    See your not being very reasonable here. Your acting as though striking the groups means that you must struck the ENTIRE reference to terrorism.
    That is just willful blindness.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Your source is out of date. The actual chain of CIA memos and emails has been released and the CIA are the ones who provided that information.
    Honestly, I am a bit confused as to what the fact is in this instance, because while they say the video came from the CIA report, I don't see a video quoted in the CIA report.

    There is no mention of a video in that report.

    Question, do you see a significant difference between
    1) Being motivated by other people acting violently in the street to act violently
    2) Seeing a video and being motivated to respond to it with violence



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When exactly did the white house say that?
    I am not sure of the date, but if you are challenging that it occurred at all.
    Here is one report on it.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...oints-Not-True


    Lots more to your post.. but I gots to go.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  26. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by: Benghazi, Obama, and the media.

    Summary.

    1) Did The administration take responsibility?
    It is easy to say that they took responsibility because they went on camera and said the words "I'm taking responsibility. But when they refuse to answer questions such as "where were you?" (or specifically where was the pres), I find it impossible to accept it as a reasonable position that they are ACTUALLY taking responsibility for THEIR ACTIONS.

    Link http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ring-benghazi/ In the link the senior white house advisory refused to answer the question "where was the pres" beyond "in the the white house".

    Do you think that is taking responsibility?
    Personally, if he was sleeping I don't really care because he (as the point was made) He isn't a micro manager and there is a chain of command
    for those who can act on his behalf. (granted he is responsible for their actions).



    2) Bush and investigation of deaths under his term.
    This is actually irrelevant unless. 1) You can show that there was CAUSE to investigate. In this case we have specific information that apparently conflicted with what the
    white house said. 2) You can show some improper action was taken.

    All you have done was oversimplify and equate two non comparable events. Further, you mistake that, the objection is raised because there were 4 deaths. When in fact it is because
    the white house put out ultimately false information.

    3) What is the "cover up"?
    Repeatedly you have appealed to the "fog of war" as the cause for the events. I honestly would accept that explanation. Unfortunately, that is not the information given by the white house or those involved. If it was fog of war, whoever was in charge could stand up and say it.. "I made the best decisions I could".
    But we don't have that.. now do we? The reason is because the White house is COVERING that fact.
    There have been several cover ups' and or out right lies.
    a) Where was Obama even at? (asked several times, refused to answer).
    b) Who specifically was responsible for the changes in talking points.
    -Related, Carney lied saying that they were only responsible for a single word change which was "stylistic" in nature. (sourced earlier).
    -Related, What was the reasoning used to justify avoiding "terrorism" and to use "spontaneous"
    c) Who gave the stand down order.
    -While we do know the chain of command that the order HAD to come from. We do not know who gave it.
    d) Who was responsible for not having enough troops there, and what was the reason.
    e) Why hasn't obama called it terrorism? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...31f9_blog.html

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Note that in all three cases, the language is not as strong as Obama asserted in the debate. Obama declared that he said “that this was an act of terror.” But actually the president spoke in vague terms, usually wrapped in a patriotic fervor. One could presume he was speaking of the incident in Libya, but he did not affirmatively state that the American ambassador died because of an “act of terror.”
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
    ie.. It is a lie to say Obama called it a terrorist attack.

    What is there to possible cover up?
    That the Pres policies did not take the threat of terrorism serious enough in that region.


    4) Don't help the witch hunt.
    There is this line of reasoning from you that the administration shouldn't help in the investigation apparently if it is a witch hunt. The problem is, when the investigation comes from Congress or the People they SHOULD be forthcoming with whatever isn't national security. So when Congress asked for the talking points, and the admin refused... That is outside the bounds of your position and into the realm of "cover up".

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...enghazi-Emails
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    In a tense exchange Wednesday afternoon between Major Garrett of CBS News and White House spokesman Jay Carney, the White House refused to offer a straight answer to Garrett's repeated requests that the Administration release the full email chain surrounding the shaping of the CIA's Benghazi talking points.
    Even if everything is out now (which I'm not certain of) it was still pulling teeth to get it done.



    5) Protest, spontaneous, and the video etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No one said it was a protest, they said it was an attack inspired by a protest. Pleas try at least actually reading the statements they made.
    It was highly associated as an extension of the Cairo PROTEST.
    I'm not coming out of left field with that comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOURCE
    "But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said Sept. 16 on NBC's Meet the Press.
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Because militants have artillery. Were talking about mortars here. They are very portable and easy to deploy. It does not take deep planing to use them. We know now with certainty the attack was indeed planned, but the use of mortars is not why we know that.
    Sure, but that doesn't make it more reasonable to assume that it was spontaneous. It is more evidence that it was NOT than that it was. If you see a tank on the scene, would you have thought it spontaneous? I mean, some guy could have just jumped into his tank.

    Sure.. it COULD happen. That doesn't make it the most reasonable conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    And how would they get there, teleportation? They have to fly in, and that means you land at an airport, then you need transportation from the airport to the battlefield. None of that is instantaneous. If you want to get in the field fast you need to drop in or come in by copter but they didn't have transport copters available. A group did indeed fly in and land at the airport and re-enforce the annex during a break in the fighting. It was actually after they got there that the lives were lost.
    Did you miss the fact that they didn't send them at all? (the ones claimed to be too far away)
    Who KNEW! they wouldn't arrive in time?

    The objection is not that it wasn't instantaneous (your just spinning there), but that it wasn't done at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Go for it.
    First, done(see above)
    Second, and more importantly..

    It is absolutely inappropriate for you to provide a quote without it's full context and relevant portions, then refuse to provide them when asked, yet maintain that it is support for your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA-RULES
    1) Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself. Depending on the context, any of the following options might be suitable:
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

    It is not my burden to research your support.

    So.. you can go back and QUOTE the "..." portion as it is relevant.
    Or you can consider your support rejected as it purposely omits relevant context.
    and don't forget that I have already supported that it is a lie/deception/false-hood to say that Obama called/identified it as a terrorist act. (supported above)

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I'm not spinning ****. There were guys with machine guns, mortars, trucks, etc... no one is saying it was a political protest march. You just want to believe something that isn't true. It was and is refereed to as a terrorist attack. What was at question is what the motivation for it was.
    Not by the President.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mind Trapped by: Effects of Obama Care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: July 26th, 2013, 05:31 AM
  2. Mind Trapped by: Marathon Bombing and the media coverage
    By MindTrap028 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 20th, 2013, 04:45 PM
  3. Mind Trapped by: supreme court on Obama care
    By MindTrap028 in forum Politics
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: July 19th, 2012, 06:20 AM
  4. Mind Trapped by Poll's
    By MindTrap028 in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 25th, 2010, 01:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •