Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/Ryan

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Misterveritis said:

But it bothers those of us who grew up expecting the President to remain silent in lieu of lying to us for a couple of weeks. This is a cover up of an embarrassing error or a crime.

Click to expand...

Of course. No argument from me there.

Barack Milhous Obama must go.

Click to expand...

I know it feels good to say that. But I don't think for a second it would have or will be any better under Romney. The Republicans will just cut State's resources even more, as is evident by the Republicans in Congress. Oh well, I already mailed in my ballot and neither of them got my vote.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mithros said:

How does it help Obama's campaign to first say that it was a spontaneous terrorist attack and then later change the assessment to a pre-planned terrorist attack? Do you wonder why no took the fast and furious conspiracy seriously? This is more conservative underpants gnome logic.

It goes something like this:
Step 1: Convince the intelligence community to release an unclassified assessment saying that the attacks were spontaneous terrorist attacks.
Step 2:
Step 3: Win Re-election.

I mean you accuse the administration of being incredibly devious that they can perfectly carry out horrendously complicated conspiracies while at the same time pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in their plan. It's just nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Obama never would have changed his story if he didn't have to. He would have been happy to keep on blaming the video. Unfortunately for him, he got caught lying and had no choice but to change his story. Even so, he won't take responsibility. He keeps trying to find something else to blame: Romney/Ryan, GOP funding cuts, etc.

He is despicable and doesn't deserve re-election.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mithros said:

No the point is that the worst thing to do in a delicate international situation is to go around throwing rhetorical bombs and bringing the debate into a Kabuki theatre. Who does that help? Does it do anything to protect other diplomats and soldiers or does it inflame and confuse the situation making the world a more dangerous place? Who does it help when you say that the only difference between yourself and the president is that the president "lacks credibility"?

Here's a hint, not us.

Yes I want an investigation as to who knew what and when. But using American deaths to score political points? Disgraceful.

When the US is attacked abroad we stand together as a nation. ... Unless the President happens to be a Democrat.

Click to expand...

Oh, PUH-leeze. This cannot possibly be an earnest statement. The entire post gurgles in self-serving nonsense. One need only be aware of the chain of events to see how poorly and crassly the Administration has handled all of this, and it is very much relevant to the decision as to whether they should be allowed to continue being in charge or not.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Maybe, it was deemed more important to get the facts considering the place wasn't a recognized consulate with normal security and the so called safe house was a CIA station. Nah, lets ignore all that and focus on a lie of ommission, while facts are being determined.

pretty shallow from all those righties who wrap themselves up in the flag and their own self righteousness.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

zimmer said:

Obama's up to his neck in it... and just at the right time.
This thing has legs because they were incompetent and tried to deceive their way out of it.

Economic disaster combined with a failed foreign policy and you've got _ E T _ _ E M E _ T.

Obama lied (Clinton, Rice & Carney too), people died.

Click to expand...

Actually I think it was people died - then Obama et al lied.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Harshaw said:

Oh, PUH-leeze. This cannot possibly be an earnest statement. The entire post gurgles in self-serving nonsense. One need only be aware of the chain of events to see how poorly and crassly the Administration has handled all of this, and it is very much relevant to the decision as to whether they should be allowed to continue being in charge or not.

Click to expand...

Except that timeline includes romney making a stupid statement at 10 pm before the facts were in, while the attack was ongoing and accused the sitting president of being an enemy sympathizer. He also tried to pin a statement from the egyptian diplomats on the ground in cairo to Obama as if he had anything to do with it. He also reiterated the rightie fantasy that obama apologized. No candidate for the president of the United States has ever made such an ill-informed, ill advised political statement while america was under attack.

Oh yes real presidential material there Mitt. this is the guy you want answering the phone at 3 am. Nothing like a knee jerk presidential reaction to a foreign crisis.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mycroft said:

That Obama bitch pissed me the **** off royally when she started laughing.

Goddamned Obama administration is "still studying" the situation. Bull****!! The only thing they are studying is how they can not look bad from their **** up.

Meanwhile, there's a mother out there whose son died in service to his country and Obama can't bring himself to tell her how it happened.

****ing Pathetic!!

Click to expand...

Four of them.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Jonsa said:

Except that timeline includes romney making a stupid statement at 10 pm before the facts were in, while the attack was ongoing and accused the sitting president of being an enemy sympathizer.

Click to expand...

Wait -- what?

He also tried to pin a statement from the egyptian diplomats on the ground in cairo to Obama as if he had anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

Again -- what?

He also reiterated the rightie fantasy that obama apologized. No candidate for the president of the United States has ever made such an ill-informed, ill advised political statement while america was under attack.

Click to expand...

I think the above statements show you don't have a terribly firm grasp on this.

Oh yes real presidential material there Mitt. this is the guy you want answering the phone at 3 am. Nothing like a knee jerk presidential reaction to a foreign crisis.

Click to expand...

This thread isn't about Mitt, now is it? Lashing at Romney doesn't change anything about what the Administration did/didn't do.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Sarcogito said:

Unfortunately that isn't a tradeoff we can make as it is two different "pots" of money. The best State can do is reduce security at some embassies in order to increase security at others. Or make tradeoffs between security personnel and security equipment.

Click to expand...

As an insider maybe you can tell me. Was tehre any increase of security becuase it was 09/11? Did the anniversary mean there should have ben increased security?

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mycroft said:

Obama never would have changed his story if he didn't have to. He would have been happy to keep on blaming the video. Unfortunately for him, he got caught lying and had no choice but to change his story. Even so, he won't take responsibility. He keeps trying to find something else to blame: Romney/Ryan, GOP funding cuts, etc.

He is despicable and doesn't deserve re-election.

Click to expand...

Again, you accuse the administration of being incredibly devious that they can perfectly carry out horrendously complicated conspiracies while at the same time pointing out a glaringly obvious flaw in the plan. You also have no explanation for how such a plan would actually help the President's reelection chances.

Should there be an investigation? ABSOLUTELY! And if someone committed a crime (of which there is currently zero evidence), they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But the investigation should be conducted outside the spectre of a partisan kabuki theatre. We should treat the brave Americans who lost their life in service to country with dignity, not drag them through partisan mudslinging.

Every one of your statements is "bla bla bla, Barack Obama is despicable and doesn't deserve re-election." Great! Don't vote for him. I'm sure you have 1000 reasons lined up. But have some decency as an American and let the Benghazi situation play itself out.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mycroft said:

Obama never would have changed his story if he didn't have to. He would have been happy to keep on blaming the video. Unfortunately for him, he got caught lying and had no choice but to change his story. Even so, he won't take responsibility. He keeps trying to find something else to blame: Romney/Ryan, GOP funding cuts, etc.

He is despicable and doesn't deserve re-election.

Click to expand...

Romney and Ryan certainly aren't to blame, but GOP funding cuts certainly do carry some of the blame.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

specklebang said:

I got my 10 minute radio dose in my car going to lunch. As is my hobby, I listened to one of the 3 strongly conservative stations. I don't know who the guy was (not Limbaugh, not Hannity) but he was saying the same things that are in this thread.

His interesting comment was "I don't know what should have been done or what we should do in the future" but Obama sucks etc.

So, what does anybody suggest should have been done and what should be done in the future?

((remember folks, I'm non-partisan so bashing me is pretty pointless. Just answer the question))

Click to expand...

There is no doubt this is a failure of both our intelligence community and this administration:

On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied. Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

The request for 12 agents was rebuffed by the regional director of the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Nordstrom testified.
"For me and my staff, it was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Nordstrom said.

Click to expand...

CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com -- More testimony indicating same at this link.

Security failure at our embassies in the Middle East is inexcusable, in my opinion. This was a needless tragedy.

At issue: Why did the Benghazi compound not have more security, even under warning of a deteriorating situation from the late ambassador? Why was a specialized security force pulled out of Benghazi in August? What was deemed a “request” for reinforcements? And why is “terrorism” still a four-letter word in the administration?

Click to expand...

PJ Media » ‘Security in Benghazi Was a Struggle… Diplomatic Security Remained Weak’

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mason66 said:

As an insider maybe you can tell me. Was tehre any increase of security becuase it was 09/11? Did the anniversary mean there should have ben increased security?

Click to expand...

I have probably already let my emotion get the best of me in these threads. It could come back to bite me, which is why I have been careful to criticize the administration and not POTUS himself.

I was not there for this particular event so I don't know what security precautions were taken, and if I did it would be foolish of me to comment on actual security procedures. But I think we can all deduce that whatever was done, it wasn't enough.

It is always a tough balance between security and actually being able to do the job of diplomacy. The tighter you make security, the less able you are to do your job. Here is the thing though, if it didn't happen on 9-11 it would have happend on 9-12, or 9-13.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mithros said:

Again, you accuse the administration of being incredibly devious that they can perfectly carry out horrendously complicated conspiracies while at the same time pointing out a glaringly obvious flaw in the plan. You also have no explanation for how such a plan would actually help the President's reelection chances.

There was nothing "incredibly devious" about Obama's decision to blame the video. It was there, it sounded plausible and it was something, other than himself, to blame. He was actually quite dumb to go that route since he was in possession of information to the contrary and he should have known such information would come out and make him look bad. But all he was thinking about was how he could spin this thing so he doesn't look bad...and he's still trying to spin it.

Should there be an investigation? ABSOLUTELY! And if someone committed a crime (of which there is currently zero evidence), they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But the investigation should be conducted outside the spectre of a partisan kabuki theatre. We should treat the brave Americans who lost their life in service to country with dignity, not drag them through partisan mudslinging.

Besides a criminal investigation, we need investigations on all fronts just to combat the lying and spinning Obama constantly engages in. The American People deserve to know the truth about this incredibly failed President and his administration.

Every one of your statements is "bla bla bla, Barack Obama is despicable and doesn't deserve re-election." Great! Don't vote for him. I'm sure you have 1000 reasons lined up. But have some decency as an American and let the Benghazi situation play itself out.

Click to expand...

I will certainly let the situation play itself out and you can be sure I won't trust or accept ANYTHING Obama and his people say unless there is independent verification. I will also recognize his "passing the buck"...like blaming Romney/Ryan...for what it is: His desire to avoid responsibility.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Sarcogito said:

I have probably already let my emotion get the best of me in these threads. It could come back to bite me, which is why I have been careful to criticize the administration and not POTUS himself.

I was not there for this particular event so I don't know what security precautions were taken, and if I did it would be foolish of me to comment on actual security procedures. But I think we can all deduce that whatever was done, it wasn't enough.

It is always a tough balance between security and actually being able to do the job of diplomacy. The tighter you make security, the less able you are to do your job. Here is the thing though, if it didn't happen on 9-11 it would have happend on 9-12, or 9-13.

Click to expand...

My question though, is it standard procedure to beef up security onthe anniversary of 09/11? If not I wonder why not.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Sarcogito said:

Romney and Ryan certainly aren't to blame, but GOP funding cuts certainly do carry some of the blame.

Click to expand...

No they don't.

Look, if funding was cut enough to affect security in Libya then, given the known dangers there, funding should have been shifted from less dangerous areas to where, and when, it was needed. The State Department...and Obama by extension...****ed up by placing those people in a location...and at that time...with minimal security.

This all rests on decisions made by Hillary and Obama. The buck stops with them regardless their attempts to blame "something else".

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mycroft said:

No they don't.

Look, if funding was cut enough to affect security in Libya then, given the known dangers there, funding should have been shifted from less dangerous areas to where, and when, it was needed. The State Department...and Obama by extension...****ed up by placing those people in a location...and at that time...with minimal security.

This all rests on decisions made by Hillary and Obama. The buck stops with them regardless their attempts to blame "something else".

Click to expand...

Duck and cover.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Harshaw said:

Team O: Libya an Issue Because Romney Politicized It - National Review Online

Video of Stephanie Cutter on CNN, responding after CNN plays a timeline of events.

So apparently, the Obama campaign thinks the first assassination of a US ambassador in 30 years in a planned attack by al Qaeda on September 11th -- as well as the Administration's inability to explain what they knew when they knew it, if indeed they know what's going on at all, accompanied by inter-departmental backstabbing -- isn't worth getting concerned over.

I mean, how could those things be as important as Big Bird?

Click to expand...

It's still unclear to me exactly what the scandal is here, or why conservatives are getting so worked up about it. No one has really been able to give me a clear answer on that. Is the problem just that the American public wasn't promptly/correctly informed about the details of the attack by the administration? And if so, why do you think it's important that you be promptly/correctly informed of the details of the attack by the administration? Or are you angry because you think Obama should have done more to prevent the attack, and if so, what should he have done?

To me this "scandal" has all the hallmarks of phony election season outrage, and it will disappear the day after the election. But maybe I'm just missing some huge issue here that gets lost amidst all the huffing and puffing. So I'd love to hear from someone outraged by this what exactly you're pissed off about.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Kandahar said:

It's still unclear to me exactly what the scandal is here, or why conservatives are getting so worked up about it. No one has really been able to give me a clear answer on that. Is the problem just that the American public wasn't informed promptly/correctly about the details of the attack by the administration? And if so, why do you think it's important that you be promptly/correctly informed of the details of the attack by the administration? Or are you angry because you think Obama should have done more to prevent the attack, and if so, what should he have done?

To me this "scandal" has all the hallmarks of phony election season outrage, and it will disappear the day after the election. :roll:

Click to expand...

:shrug: The video is rather clear as to the issues -- the Administration pushing forward with a narrative it knew was false, or at the most charitable SHOULD have known (that strikes me as the worse possibility, though), along with the additional issues of being aware that the embassy asked for greater security but didn't get it.

You can agree or disagree, but to say it's "unclear" is something else entirely.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Harshaw said:

Oh, PUH-leeze. This cannot possibly be an earnest statement. The entire post gurgles in self-serving nonsense. One need only be aware of the chain of events to see how poorly and crassly the Administration has handled all of this, and it is very much relevant to the decision as to whether they should be allowed to continue being in charge or not.

Click to expand...

One need only be aware of the supposed chain of events hypothesized by self serving right wing snake oil salesmen fed to those who live in a right wing bubble to come to your conclusions. The criticisms started before we knew that any American blood had even been spilt.... before anyone even knew there was an issue. You don't need an investigation. In your mind the president was guilty before he swore the oath of office.

Remember 9/11? What happened? We now know that the terrorist plot that killed 3000+ Americans could have been prevented had the administration not disregarded explicit threats because they believed that Saddam Hussein was the real threat. Then a war was launched under the justification of deliberately fabricated intelligence. And following that the Administration engaged in what is arguably violations of the Geneva Conventions.

And even though Bush was elected under the most hyper-partisan situations imaginable, what happened? Democrats and Republicans all rallied around the flag because when you attack Americans you attack ALL Americans. In the aftermath of 9/11 Bush had a 95% plus approval rating. And what happened when Bush presented a rather weak case for going to war? I seem to remember the opposition being quite muted and respectful. It wasn't months after Bush landed on an Aircraft, having declared Mission Accomplished, with hundreds of troops dying, and no end in sight; that any real opposition started.

How many partisan investigations were launched? Oh, that's right. None.

Lets face it. If Obama had presided over 9/11 he would have never had a 95% approval rating. I doubt that he would have had even a 50%. The GOP would have mounted instant investigations. Issa would have started his witch hunts before the last tower fell. Heads would have rolled over the falsified intelligence reports and the GOP would have made the prosecution and impeachment of President Obama for war-crimes its #1 objective.

There are far to many on the right who are the first to wrap themselves in the flag when a Republican is in office, and the first to throw bombs when they're not in charge. The childishness would be amusing if it didn't cost the lives of so many brave Americans.

Domestic politics is fair game. But when we're attacked abroad we stick together until all of the facts are known.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Harshaw said:

:shrug: The video is rather clear as to the issues -- the Administration pushing forward with a narrative it knew was false, or at the most charitable SHOULD have known (that strikes me as the worse possibility, though), along with the additional issues of being aware that the embassy asked for greater security but didn't get it.

You can agree or disagree, but to say it's "unclear" is something else entirely.

Click to expand...

No I mean it's unclear to me why that should cause outrage. For example, let's assume your premise is correct for the sake of argument: The administration had all the facts immediately after the attack, and told the American people something it knew to be false, for whatever reason. Did doing so negatively impact national security in some way? Is there some practical benefit to informing the public? I assume that all presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican, frequently don't come clean with the public about national security matters...and often there are very good reasons for that. So I don't understand 1) why the public even NEEDS to know the details of the Libya attack, and 2) why you would expect to learn them from the administration.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Kandahar said:

No I mean it's unclear to me why that should cause outrage. For example, let's assume your premise is correct for the sake of argument: The administration had all the facts immediately after the attack, and told the American people something it knew to be false, for whatever reason. Did doing so negatively impact national security in some way? Is there some practical benefit to informing the public? I assume that all presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican, frequently don't come clean with the public about national security matters...and often there are very good reasons for that. So I don't understand 1) why the public even NEEDS to know the details of the Libya attack, and 2) why you would expect to learn them from the administration.

Click to expand...

When there's reason to think the Administration was deliberately false to cover up its own failures or misdeeds, then indeed, it's an issue. One President, at least, resigned over exactly that.

As I said, you can agree or not, but it shouldn't be unclear.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mithros said:

One need only be aware of the supposed chain of events hypothesized by self serving right wing snake oil salesmen fed to those who live in a right wing bubble to come to your conclusions. The criticisms started before we knew that any American blood had even been spilt.... before anyone even knew there was an issue. You don't need an investigation. In your mind the president was guilty before he swore the oath of office.

Remember 9/11? What happened? We now know that the terrorist plot that killed 3000+ Americans could have been prevented had the administration not disregarded explicit threats because they believed that Saddam Hussein was the real threat. Then a war was launched under the justification of deliberately fabricated intelligence. And following that the Administration engaged in what is arguably violations of the Geneva Conventions.

And even though Bush was elected under the most hyper-partisan situations imaginable, what happened? Democrats and Republicans all rallied around the flag because when you attack Americans you attack ALL Americans. In the aftermath of 9/11 Bush had a 95% plus approval rating. And what happened when Bush presented a rather weak case for going to war? I seem to remember the opposition being quite muted and respectful. It wasn't months after Bush landed on an Aircraft, having declared Mission Accomplished, with hundreds of troops dying, and no end in sight; that any real opposition started.

How many partisan investigations were launched? Oh, that's right. None.

Lets face it. If Obama had presided over 9/11 he would have never had a 95% approval rating. I doubt that he would have had even a 50%. The GOP would have mounted instant investigations. Issa would have started his witch hunts before the last tower fell. Heads would have rolled over the falsified intelligence reports and the GOP would have made the prosecution and impeachment of President Obama for war-crimes its #1 objective.

There are far to many on the right who are the first to wrap themselves in the flag when a Republican is in office, and the first to throw bombs when they're not in charge. The childishness would be amusing if it didn't cost the lives of so many brave Americans.

Domestic politics is fair game. But when we're attacked abroad we stick together until all of the facts are known.

Click to expand...

There are several things post in here which simply don't survive fact, or are so only in the most extremely narrow sense.

And your last sentence is, again, self-serving and silly.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mycroft said:

I will certainly let the situation play itself out and you can be sure I won't trust or accept ANYTHING Obama and his people say unless there is independent verification. I will also recognize his "passing the buck"...like blaming Romney/Ryan...for what it is: His desire to avoid responsibility.

Click to expand...

How does it make Obama look any worse if it was a planned terrorist attack vs a spontaneous terrorist attack? It just makes no sense. There's no narrative to hold on to. We've just been through 8 years of pretty much constant attacks and threats of attacks. While those have largely subsided, no one expected al Qaeda to disappear completely from the map. I'm quite sure that Obama he spends a rather large amount of time fighting terrorism.

There was a fast moving situation on the ground where embassy were being peacefully protested by increasingly belligerent crowds in response to a video. Those protesters weren't part of any plot, they were used by al Qaeda as as cover. Faced with that situation is more security the best course of action or would sending additional troops have inflamed the situation? Would condemning the attack as al Qaeda terrorism while protesters were still in the streets been a good idea, or would it have muddled the issues and conflated our supporters with our enemies? Could the situation have been handled better or was it reasonable given the information available at the time?

I'm of the opinion that these are open questions. They should be looked at carefully in a non-partisan lens and then once all of the facts are known we should take appropriate action.

Re: Watch the Obama Campaign tell us that Libya is only a big deal because of Romney/

Mithros said:

How does it make Obama look any worse if it was a planned terrorist attack vs a spontaneous terrorist attack? It just makes no sense. There's no narrative to hold on to. We've just been through 8 years of pretty much constant attacks and threats of attacks. While those have largely subsided, no one expected al Qaeda to disappear completely from the map. I'm quite sure that Obama he spends a rather large amount of time fighting terrorism.

There was a fast moving situation on the ground where embassy were being peacefully protested by increasingly belligerent crowds in response to a video. Those protesters weren't part of any plot, they were used by al Qaeda as as cover. Faced with that situation is more security the best course of action or would sending additional troops have inflamed the situation? Would condemning the attack as al Qaeda terrorism while protesters were still in the streets been a good idea, or would it have muddled the issues and conflated our supporters with our enemies? Could the situation have been handled better or was it reasonable given the information available at the time?

I'm of the opinion that these are open questions. They should be looked at carefully in a non-partisan lens and then once all of the facts are known we should take appropriate action.

Click to expand...

Ummm...

Perhaps you didn't hear the latest from the State Department. There WERE no protests at the time, whether in response to the video or not. Here, this will get you up to speed: State Department: Libya Consulate Attack Not Preceded By Protest

The whole portion of your post that I highlighted is irrelevant. As for the remainder, it is clear that Obama's actions after the event were and are designed to do as little damage to his re-election bid as possible. We are still finding out whether he and Hillary, through their action and inaction, caused the death of American Citizens.