• 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!

Diplomats in Benghazi Debacle Back on Job

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?

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.

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?


Because at the time.....it wasn't believed any of our people would die. They thought Security was provided and all was covered. Then they discovered those that hit us were in fact the same people who were providing security for us.

Also the Other reason for lack of vision and not seeing the Call out for 911. That we got hit on the Anniversary thereof.

Another reason would be due to the issue as to why Stevens was there in the First Place and at that time of night and Meeting the Turk's Envoy. Considering the Turks made a special trip and all.
 
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?

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.

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?

If it was successfully sold as a spontaneous attack, for which we had no warning, then the idea that even understanding what was going on, much less resonding to it, was "impossible" is easier to sell. As you have said, this was simply intended to be filed under "stuff occurs" and downplayed as being "real terrorism" (organized and preplanned). When we were told months ago that swift and sure justice would occur for "those involved" and that all the facts would be reveiwed we have yet to see the first arrest or even any tesitmony from those present at the actual event site. The deaths may have not been preventable but the effort put forth in the cover up/follow up makes that seem very unlikely, IMHO.
 
If it was successfully sold as a spontaneous attack, for which we had no warning, then the idea that even understanding what was going on, much less resonding to it, was "impossible" is easier to sell. As you have said, this was simply intended to be filed under "stuff occurs" and downplayed as being "real terrorism" (organized and preplanned). When we were told months ago that swift and sure justice would occur for "those involved" and that all the facts would be reveiwed we have yet to see the first arrest or even any tesitmony from those present at the actual event site. The deaths may have not been preventable but the effort put forth in the cover up/follow up makes that seem very unlikely, IMHO.

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.
 
If can't say anything else about federal government, you have to admit they are masters at sweeping things under the rug.
 
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".
 
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?

[/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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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??
 
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!
 
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.
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.
 
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.


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.

lol....
 
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.


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.

No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.
 
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.

When he said "The Taliban is inside the building" perhaps it is more than just conjecture.Why Won't the Media Cover Huma Abedin's Ties to the Global Jihad Movement? - Diana West - Page 1
 
No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.

Coulter nails it here. Arab Spring: Worst Soap Ever - Ann Coulter - Page 1
 
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.


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.

Heya TR. :2wave: Wow you are way off base with this.....let me clue you in. The Libyans told us 3 days Before 911 that Benghazi was to dangerous to do business in. 1 full day ahead of Al Zawahiri released tape calling all to avenge al-Libi. ( Now I know most of the lefties tend to think al-libi means Gadhafi, but nothing could be farther from the truth. He was an AQ Operator)

Moreover in this region of Libya. Ansar al Shariah is the Local Law Enforcement.....the Same that Clinton and the State Dept hired to protect our people. The same who attacked our people and set up the road blocks. So calling the police would not have helped at all. As they were already there shooting at us.

So no the Libyans.....told the State and CIA. When the host country says we can't provide Security and you want to go there and set up and arms deal with the Turks to run Weapons to Syria. That it is to dangerous to conduct any business. Then we cannot say......the Libyans are responsible at all.

Even goes back to transitioning in the TNC......there is no getting around the facts that ALL of Team Obama, knew after the fall of Gadhafi. That there was not any sufficient security forces with the Libyans. No standing Army either. All of the state and CIA knew that Libya was now the Wild Wild West. No Police Forces in the Country.

That the Berbers still controlled their own areas, and that they will not accept Rule by ANY SUNNI whatsoever. Hence the way things are there today!!!!!
 
translation: i am right and you have nothing to say.

No, far from it.

The reality is the Benghazi disaster was just waiting on time for it to happen. The entire Libya misadventure wasn't thought out and this is just part of it. A deadly part, but still just part.

Sooner or later competence at the bottom can't provide enough cover for incompetence at the top. This was a prime example. You've tried to place the blame on everything but the kitchen sink except for those that could have done a better job in preventing it from happening. Trying to pass the buck off on the Libyan government is really good for a laugh. We destroy an existing government yet turn around and expect a new one to protect our assets? Wishful Christmas thinking.
 
Dont start off with an insult and expect someone to take you seriously.

Speak for yourself. I take him seriously. BTW, some insults are allowed here, others aren't. It seem to depend on which side of political spectrum you belong to.
 
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.

Perhaps if it were you and three of your ilk it would be a non-issue, but this incident involved real men who died for no other reason than we having a complete moron in the White House.
 
No, the reality is that the Lybian government was fractured and nonexistent. There were reports and threats of AQ and other radical groups almost daily in and around Benghazi. The Obama administration should have beefed up security or taken our people out long before the attack took place. Negligence and incompetence on the part of Obama and the State Department, and no one held accountable.

With what money and what people? Do you know how much defense you would have to have in such a place to keep it secure? It is simply unaffordable, and it might not have even been allowed by the libyan government. The only legitimate argument i could see about Obama making a mistake was establishing a embassy in a country like that before they could provide proper law enforcement. Even then I can see why the attempt was made to have one there because the US saw a way to get at new interests by establishing diplomatic relationships through an embassy with a new government. It was a risk and everyone including the people who died knew what they were getting into.
 
Back
Top Bottom