• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Offers New Details Of Deadly Libya Attack

If a Republican was in the White House four Americans would still be alive.

Actually, if history is an indicator, a Republican WAS in the White House, and thousands of soldiers were killed or maimed because they were sent into harms way in the wrong country after 911. It also helped tank our economy.
 
You guys get pretty dumb with this red vs blue crap. They are just different sides of the same coin. Someone wanted that ambassador dead and that's the only thing that makes sense.
 
Looks like you were mistaken. ;)

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings

63d1cc90-cea1-486d-8669-4fa1cf3bf26e.jpg


Much of the media and liberal establishment simply ignored yesterday's Benghazi hearings. They were content to see, hear, and speak no evil -- which is typically the fastest way to kill a story in Washington. Others framed the proceedings as just another quixotic, partisan effort to hype a long-resolved story. Selling that template requires adherence to two fallacious assertions: First, that no major questions remain regarding the 9/11 terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya -- and second, that no new information emerged from the whistle-blowers' hours-long testimony. The former claim is outright insulting. The latter betrays either aggressive ignorance or wishful thinking. House Oversight Committee Republicans' focused questioning extracted quite a few nuggets of relevant information. For their part, many committee Democrats were focused on unseemly efforts to attack, distract and smear -- all employed as they cynically groused about Republicans "politicizing" the investigation. Cutting through the nonsense and dissembling, here's what we now know:

1) Murdered US Ambassador Chris Stevens' second in command, Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress (higher quality video is available here):

(2) When Hicks began to voice strenuous objections to the administration's inaccurate talking points with State Department higher-ups, the administration turned hostile. After being lavishly praised by the president and the Secretary of State for his performance under fire, Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones instantly reversed course and launched into a "blistering critique" of Hicks' leadership. He was subsequently "effectively demoted." Hicks called Rice's talking points "stunning" and "embarrassing."

(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson

“… because exact conditions on the ground in Benghazi were unknown……the CIF began to fulfill its tasking by pre-positioning at an intermediate staging location, Naval Air Station Sigonella (in Sicily, Italy). From the moment the CIF was ordered to move, it did not stand down until after all personnel (including the fallen) had been evacuated from Benghazi in a little over 12 hours after the initiation of the attack… the time needed from alerting the CIF to landing at the Benghazi airport is greater than the approximately 7.5 hours between the initiation of the first attack and the second one. As such, the time requirements for notification, load and transit alone prevented the CIF from being at the annex in enough time to change events.”

Asst. SecDef.

You guys get pretty dumb with this red vs blue crap. They are just different sides of the same coin. Someone wanted that ambassador dead and that's the only thing that makes sense.


Yeah. A bunch of ****ing terrorists.
 
Asst. SecDef.




Yeah. A bunch of ****ing terrorists.


Yeah a SOD and Joint Chief of Staff Saying They Never talked to Hillary and the State Dept Never Called for Assets.....wonder who was the ****ing Moron that screwed that pooch.



General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested "support" in Benghazi:
"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"

McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"

"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"

"So it's the State Department's fault?"

"I'm not blaming the State Department," Dempsey responded.....snip~

Panetta, Dempsey: No communication with Clinton

At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and General Dempsey if they had been in contact with Hillary Clinton

CRUZ: In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?

PANETTA: We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton

CRUZ: And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?

Dempsey confirmed.....snip~

2012 Benghazi Attack | Newslines
 
Yeah a SOD and Joint Chief of Staff Saying They Never talked to Hillary and the State Dept Never Called for Assets.....wonder who was the ****ing Moron that screwed that pooch.



General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the State Department never requested "support" in Benghazi:
"Why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond?," Senator John McCain asked the general.

Dempsey started, "Because we never received a request to do so, number one. And number two, we --"

McCain iterrupted, "You never heard of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings?"

"I had, through General Ham," responded Dempsey, referring to the commander of AFRICOM. "But we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forces--"

"So it's the State Department's fault?"

"I'm not blaming the State Department," Dempsey responded.....snip~

Panetta, Dempsey: No communication with Clinton

At a Thursday hearing in the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and General Dempsey if they had been in contact with Hillary Clinton

CRUZ: In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?

PANETTA: We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton

CRUZ: And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?

Dempsey confirmed.....snip~

2012 Benghazi Attack | Newslines


I wonder if the denied requests for additional security had anything to do with the nearly $300 million the Republicans insist be cut from embassy security and construction budgets.

edit: clarification
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the denied requests had anything to do with the nearly $300 million the Republicans insist be cut from embassy security and construction budgets.

Actually if you look thru the threads you will see I have posted up 3 times Factcheckers....all debunking the Security issue. So you will need to look for a different reason on that one......Just sayin.
 
Was funding actually cut?


Dana Milbank: Forget about Big Bird - The Washington Post

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
 


Summary

◾Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Biden’s Libya Claims

Biden claimed that Ryan “cut embassy security in his budget $300 million below what we asked for.” That’s an exaggeration. The fiscal year 2012 funding was $264 million less than the administration had requested, and the funding isn’t only for security. It covers construction and maintenance as well.


Biden: Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one.

The Obama administration requested $1.801 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to The Hill newspaper. And House Republicans came back with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. Ultimately, the Republican-controlled House agreed to increase funding to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

Biden also claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of security concerns among U.S. officials in Libya before the attack on the consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The vice president said: “[W]e weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”

We can’t say whether requests for more security — which were denied — reached the top. But American officials who worked in Libya over the summer placed the blame on a deputy assistant secretary of state — not top administration officials — when testifying before Congress this week.

Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, said: “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources.”

Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team, testified: ”We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met.”

They placed the blame squarely on Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, according to Foreign Policy magazine.....snip~

FactCheck.org : Veep Debate Violations

Biden, pressed on the administration's response to the attack in Libya, said, "We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities. That statement is accurate only if you define "we" to mean "people at the White House." A State Department officer in Libya said that he requested additional guards and was turned down by at least one other official in the State Department. The White House said Biden meant that the security requests had not been conveyed to him and others in the executive office. It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made. We rate the statement Mostly False.....snip~

PolitiFact | Fact-checking the vice presidential debate

Statement:

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

The facts:

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

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

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

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

CNN Fact Check: What about the security in Benghazi? - CNN.com
 
Last edited:
Yes, answering the question you asked is a straw man!! :roll:
Don't misunderstand ... I wasn't suggesting your answer was a straw man but rather whoever suggested security funding cuts were to blame was making a straw man argument unless they could show cuts actually resulted in security reductions at the consulate.
 
Don't misunderstand ... I wasn't suggesting your answer was a straw man but rather whoever suggested security funding cuts were to blame was making a straw man argument unless they could show cuts actually resulted in changes at the consulate.

You must not understand what a straw man is.

Moot never claimed that someone said the budget had been cut. Moot was the one who raised the issue

Raising an issue is *not* a straw man.
 
You must not understand what a straw man is.

Moot never claimed that someone said the budget had been cut. Moot was the one who raised the issue

Raising an issue is *not* a straw man.

Oh yes it is ... whoever makes the argument that budget cuts, even if there were cuts, caused weakened consulate security have made a straw man argument unless they can show more of a connection.
I suppose you can say they were a lying pile of **** so if you prefer that, here you go ...
524900480_f97cfb4eb4_o.gif
 
I attended an air show once in Stockton, CA. The pilot of an F15 flew off to the East and in about 12 minutes he returned and told us Lake Tahoe was quite beautiful. I'm not a geography expert in the Med but I'm guessing the air craft we have stationed in Italy could have been over Benghazi within the first hour, now they might have caused a civilian casaulty or two, but at least we would have responded. And just where is the justice this loser in charge promised us for those who were murdered by the rioting looters oh I mean terrorist? And why is there no outrage that a US Ambassador didn't even have a single body guard on site to help him?

Flight time from Aviano/Lignano to Tripoli 2hrs. 20min. That's commercial speed... 600mph.
F-16's can fly at Mach 1.2 loaded to do the job. Mach 2.2 naked.

So, we're talking about 90min with military jets at Mach 1.2 once they scramble.

They could have flown in their with jets to take care of some business and give our guys a chance... and with slower planes bringing in troops in 2-3 hours.

Aviano to Tripoli Flight Time and Duration
 
Last edited:
Flight time from Aviano/Lignano to Tripoli 2hrs. 20min. That's commercial speed... 600mph.
F-16's can fly at Mach 1.2

So, we're talking about 90min with military jets at Mach 1.2 once they scramble.

They could have flown in their with jets to take care of some business and give our guys a chance... and with slower planes bringing in troops in 2-3 hours.

Aviano to Tripoli Flight Time and Duration

And besides ... if you see you're needed, you need to make bold contemporaneous decisions ... not draw gratuitous "wouldn't have mattered" conclusions days/weeks/months later to excuse the decisions you did make to not act.
 
Oh yes it is ... whoever makes the argument that budget cuts, even if there were cuts, caused weakened consulate security have made a straw man argument unless they can show more of a connection.
I suppose you can say they were a lying pile of **** so if you prefer that, here you go ...
524900480_f97cfb4eb4_o.gif

Just as I suspected

You don't know what a straw man is. :lol:
 
Actually, if history is an indicator, a Republican WAS in the White House, and thousands of soldiers were killed or maimed because they were sent into harms way in the wrong country after 911. It also helped tank our economy.

Aphganistan ???

There were more than a few other countries we also militarily intervened in after 9-11-01. But your not privileged to know about them and G.W. Bush never politicalized the war against Al Qaeda or other Islamist radicals for his own political gain., Obama can't make such a claim.
 
Aphganistan ???

There were more than a few other countries we also militarily intervened in after 9-11-01. But your not privileged to know about them and G.W. Bush never politicalized the war against Al Qaeda or other Islamist radicals for his own political gain., Obama can't make such a claim.

Um, no. Iraq. Remember all those WMD's that the Bush administration said were there? Remember the so-called rocket launcher that was found out to actually be a firetruck BEFORE the invasion? I guess you don't. Those who supported Bush have very short memories where it comes to things like that.

 
Um, no. Iraq. Remember all those WMD's that the Bush administration said were there? Remember the so-called rocket launcher that was found out to actually be a firetruck BEFORE the invasion? I guess you don't. Those who supported Bush have very short memories where it comes to things like that.

If you ever read the FBI's interrogation of Saddam Hussein, even Saddam was starting to believe he still had WMD's. But it wasn't Bush but the British intelligence services who convinced Bush that there were still WMD's in Iraq.

My memory is fine, I actualy know who was saying what and I never drank the libs kool-aid. Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
 
If you ever read the FBI's interrogation of Saddam Hussein, even Saddam was starting to believe he still had WMD's. But it wasn't Bush but the British intelligence services who convinced Bush that there were still WMD's in Iraq.

My memory is fine, I actualy know who was saying what and I never drank the libs kool-aid. Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI
I bet he was tortured (oh sorry I mean interrogated with enhancement) too and any statements he made under interrogation are pretty much null and void.
 
I bet he was tortured (oh sorry I mean interrogated with enhancement) too and any statements he made under interrogation are pretty much null and void.

By 2004 Muammar Gaddafi intelligence services was conducting all enhanced interrogations for the CIA. Saddam Hussein was never transported to Libya.
 
Back
Top Bottom