Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 230

Thread: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

  1. #31
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,705

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I make no excuses for the narrative, "spontaneous attack" was clearly wrong from the beginning, the fact that they were attacked in two different places and received indirect fire makes it extremely difficult to call it a spontaneous attack.

    Also not seeing an arrest yet is not uncommon for terrorism, it took over 2 years to arrest the guy behind the 1993 WTC bombings, and there's still people that are "at large" but have warrents out for their involvement in the African embassy bombings in the 90s, the 1993 WTC bombing, the USS Cole Bombing, the 9/11 attacks, etc... When you're target is overseas you're ability to arrest is entirely dependant on the willingness of the local government to arrest and turn that guy over to you, except for the rare case like OBL where we go get the guy.

    No President is going to say it'll take years, or admit that it will take months just to do the investigation, they'll always promise swift justice.
    So, in a foreign environment deemed, even now, so unsafe as to prevent even "investgating", much less making an arrest we are to believe that adequate security was in place and a decent backup plan for any security failure was also in place? We knew that there was no local gov't in Lybia (especially in the Benghazi region), and likely used that "chaotic" situation to funnel arms to "friendly" forces in Syria yet nothing was ever said about why the "annex" in Benghazi, rather than the embassy in Tripoli was selected for an attack. There is likely much that we are not being told about this entire Benghazi affair, thus no need to hear any "testimony" from those actually present and "in the know".
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    None of these are reasons to leave them to die, how does Americans dying right before an election help one get elected? To tell me that he let them die because he was worried about re-election makes no damn sense at all. Likewise keeping the narrative that AQ is under control is not a good reason, how does it help the message that AQ style terrorism is under control if they successfully kill four Americans? Wouldn't it make more sense to rescue four Americans so they could claim no victory? Seriously, if you're thinking of how to spread the message that AQ and terrorism is under control, why would you think that letting terrorists kill four Americans would help that message?

    And the narrative of a spontaneous attack, how does it help that narrative if four people are killed? Dead bodies is only going to bring more s****iny over what happened, not less. And how does whether people people were killed or not play into spontaneity? Do we think that people are more likely to die in spontaneous attacks rather than pre-planned ones, therefore they had to let four people die to carry that narrative?

    [B][/Sorry but there's no good reason anybody, especially someone trying to get re-elected literally less than two months later would deliberately let this happen.B]

    The attack on Benghazi was a tragic event, but **** happens in the world, its not the first time that an embassy or diplomatic compound has been attacked nor Americans killed while overseas. What makes this event so damn special that it deserves so much damn attention other than the fact that it makes useful political fodder?
    I'm sure glad you share our outrage after all; for if we had a transparent administration that didn't lie for several weeks about the false outrage over a video and was forthright about the answers to these questions - we'd know. But alas we don't because your chosen dictator and his puppets don't want to say exactly what they were doing, thinking or said during this horrible event.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I make no excuses for the narrative, "spontaneous attack" was clearly wrong from the beginning, the fact that they were attacked in two different places and received indirect fire makes it extremely difficult to call it a spontaneous attack.
    Yes, it is clear that Hillary, Barrack, and Susan Rice lied.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    So, in a foreign environment deemed, even now, so unsafe as to prevent even "investgating", much less making an arrest we are to believe that adequate security was in place and a decent backup plan for any security failure was also in place? We knew that there was no local gov't in Lybia (especially in the Benghazi region), and likely used that "chaotic" situation to funnel arms to "friendly" forces in Syria yet nothing was ever said about why the "annex" in Benghazi, rather than the embassy in Tripoli was selected for an attack. There is likely much that we are not being told about this entire Benghazi affair, thus no need to hear any "testimony" from those actually present and "in the know".
    I don't understand what you're saying, this has nothing to do with Syria. And obviously in hindsight security measures were insufficent, just as they've been insufficent in every other time and place an American has been killed in an attack. Also making an arrest has more to do with jurisdiction and ability of local officals than safety.

    I don't know why people think that finding and arresting, or otherwise dealing, with the people responsible is a simple thing easily done.

  5. #35
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    11-30-13 @ 07:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,293

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    4 dead is horrible to you, but you probably thought a second Bush term was a great idea. Please, keep the faux outrage and get another issue. this is a non-issue. You never freaked out under other presidents who had a lot more embassy attacks and deaths than obama has. You did not say it was sick that a president ignores dire warnings that lead to the largest terror attack and over 3000 dead civilians on US soil. You never freaked out over the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in a goose chase for WMDs that never existed. Now 4 people dead is sick. Seriously, you sound like jim Carrey protesting kickass 2.
    Tapper CNN:What's notable about this move is that those decisions to not provide additional security personnel and assets in Libya, that's one of the only parts of the Benghazi scandal that Obama administration officials will acknowledge was a real actual problem. You can you go back and forth on talking points from the White House and whether U.S. military assets were in position to rescue the Americans being attacked, but the continual denials throughout 2011 and 2012 of additional security for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others there in Libya, that part of the Benghazi controversy no one with any real knowledge or perspective on the tragedy can refute. How bad was it? Recall the testimony of the former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, who left his post less than two months before the attack. He described for Congress just how State Department officials continually shot down his requests for additional security.

    NORDSTROM: You know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added it by saying for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.

    TAPPER: You heard that correctly. That's the regional security officer from Libya, the former one, describing State Department officials as the Taliban. An independent review of what happened in Benghazi noted that security was "grossly inadequate" and faulted systemic failures in leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels, though it was established that no one had been proven to have been breached his or her duty.

    'nuff said. For now.

  6. #36
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,705

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I don't understand what you're saying, this has nothing to do with Syria. And obviously in hindsight security measures were insufficent, just as they've been insufficent in every other time and place an American has been killed in an attack. Also making an arrest has more to do with jurisdiction and ability of local officals than safety.

    I don't know why people think that finding and arresting, or otherwise dealing, with the people responsible is a simple thing easily done.
    Are you so sure about that? An ounce of prevention is often worth more than a pound of cure.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Tapper CNN:What's notable about this move is that those decisions to not provide additional security personnel and assets in Libya, that's one of the only parts of the Benghazi scandal that Obama administration officials will acknowledge was a real actual problem. You can you go back and forth on talking points from the White House and whether U.S. military assets were in position to rescue the Americans being attacked, but the continual denials throughout 2011 and 2012 of additional security for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others there in Libya, that part of the Benghazi controversy no one with any real knowledge or perspective on the tragedy can refute. How bad was it? Recall the testimony of the former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, who left his post less than two months before the attack. He described for Congress just how State Department officials continually shot down his requests for additional security.

    NORDSTROM: You know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added it by saying for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.

    TAPPER: You heard that correctly. That's the regional security officer from Libya, the former one, describing State Department officials as the Taliban. An independent review of what happened in Benghazi noted that security was "grossly inadequate" and faulted systemic failures in leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels, though it was established that no one had been proven to have been breached his or her duty.

    'nuff said. For now.
    Here's part of that testimony. “The Taliban Is On The Inside Of The Building” - The Ulsterman Report

  8. #38
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southern USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    52

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I don't understand what you're saying, this has nothing to do with Syria. And obviously in hindsight security measures were insufficent, just as they've been insufficent in every other time and place an American has been killed in an attack. Also making an arrest has more to do with jurisdiction and ability of local officals than safety.

    I don't know why people think that finding and arresting, or otherwise dealing, with the people responsible is a simple thing easily done.
    What tt said makes perfect sense, if you've kept up with what's taken place. Why some can't see that this entire Benghazi issue has been swept under the rug by the Obama administration is incomprehensible. Can you explain why so many Americans want answers on this issue??

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by Mizmo View Post
    What tt said makes perfect sense, if you've kept up with what's taken place. Why some can't see that this entire Benghazi issue has been swept under the rug by the Obama administration is incomprehensible. Can you explain why so many Americans want answers on this issue??
    One theory is that everything now is party politics and the truth is whatever you want it to be. When people begin supporting known liars because of party affiliation then you know that the country is going to sink even deeper into the muck. It's a damned shame!

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    Tapper CNN:What's notable about this move is that those decisions to not provide additional security personnel and assets in Libya, that's one of the only parts of the Benghazi scandal that Obama administration officials will acknowledge was a real actual problem. You can you go back and forth on talking points from the White House and whether U.S. military assets were in position to rescue the Americans being attacked, but the continual denials throughout 2011 and 2012 of additional security for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others there in Libya, that part of the Benghazi controversy no one with any real knowledge or perspective on the tragedy can refute. How bad was it? Recall the testimony of the former regional security officer in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, who left his post less than two months before the attack. He described for Congress just how State Department officials continually shot down his requests for additional security.
    Like I said, the refusal to add more security actually kept the casualties lower than they were in the past. Our last 5 presidents have lost more overall, and have lost more in singular attacks on embassies than 4 dead. With things like budget cuts there is simply a financial reality that you cannot provide more security. It costs money and we have a little cash flow problem here in the US you might want to familarize yourself with. The reality is that putting less people in harms way actually saved lives. You can whine and complain all you want about it, but let us say they doubled the staff there, you would simply have had 8 dead americans and a few more casualties on the other side. These people were not killed by a lone gunman which might have been stopped by a couple of extra security people, they were killed by a mob that was armed pretty damned well, and that was probably familiar with fighting given their location and history. The sort of extra support that would have been effective here would have been prohibitively expensive, but you could always start supporting higher taxes if you want a fully armed military squad protecting startup embassies like this. Normally the reason a foreign embassy is secure against the locals is the foreign police and military would intervene to suppress actions like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by ItAin'tFree View Post
    NORDSTROM: You know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me. And I added it by saying for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.

    TAPPER: You heard that correctly. That's the regional security officer from Libya, the former one, describing State Department officials as the Taliban. An independent review of what happened in Benghazi noted that security was "grossly inadequate" and faulted systemic failures in leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels, though it was established that no one had been proven to have been breached his or her duty.

    'nuff said. For now.
    the reality is that libya should have had some responsibility in securing a foreign embassy on their soil. Let us say a group of armed americans wanted to storm a russian embassy on US soil we would have law enforcement there to stop what would be a criminal act of violence. The libyan government has most of the responsibility on their heads for this BS. Until they can secure their own country and establish those protections there will be no safety for embassies on their soil.

Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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