• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Benghazi Revisited

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I am not big on starting threads not related to links, but I ask people from both sides to consider the following about the mushrooming Benghazi story:

1. I would hate to be lost in a maze relying on the folks here to get me out; and

2. There are 2 different Benghazi stories. The first is the nature of the attack and the second is why the military was not authorized to assist, which is the more important issue IMHO. A thorough investigation will reveal the answer to the first question. The second question does not require investigation just admission.

Why won’t the Administration own up to the order and who gave it? The apparent answer is that the President gave the order, but that is not the obvious point that people seem to miss. If the intervention was approved, there was no guarantee that it would have been successful and there would be a high probability that it would have opened up a political can of worms. Regardless of why and upon whom the US would have been firing, the neophyte government in Libya would have collapsed and a radical Islamic government like seen next door in Egypt would replace it if we did not put troops into Libya to prop of the existing government. With an impending election, the collapse of the Libyan government or the deployment of US forces into Libya would have cost Obama the election.

I am confident that the eventual explanation will be along the line that these were heros for freedom in Libya and that is why they were there and the risk they assumed when they signed on if it even comes up. I am sure the Administration rationalizes it in their minds as securing democracy and freedom for the Libyans is more important than chancing a probably failed mission that would have denied the seeds of freedom fertile ground in Libya, but they are buying time to spin that more into a rescue mission was impossible type story.

I am of the opinion that if a politician has a shot to save American lives, you try to save the lives and damned be the consequences. The former SEALS got that by disregarding their orders and trying to save the life of the Ambassador. There are arguments that the failure of the Libyan government or the insertion of troops would have cost us more lives than were lost. I won’t argue the metric, only that I think they should have tried to save the lives regardless of the odds of success.

What Washington seems unable to grasp, is that the confusion and/or cover-up of the nature of the attack will blowback onto the second issue of the decision. When taken together, it will eventually look like the Administration purposefully created the confusion over the nature of the attack to conceal the ultimate decision not to try to assist the Ambassador et als. That is the story that is going to crap all over their parade if Obama is re-elected.

(sorry about the length)
 
Very well said!
 
Oh thank God, a 14th thread on the Benghazi attacks ... in the presidential election forum. The mods must be working overtime.
 
Back
Top Bottom