• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,275
Reaction score
10,372
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military

The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya — to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets — and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission,” the panel said in a statement
Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented - The Washington Post

FOX Report
mentioned tonight was the absurd "blame the building" scenario as Krauthammer put it.

"State Dept." but absolutely no-one is mentioned. Like there is this entity that runs itself, with absolutely no-one in charge or even there.

Shape-shifting blameless unaccountable ghosts at Foggy Bottom.

Feinstein even came out yestersay and specifically defended Hillary, who wasn't even mentioned..

(asides from the attack was caused by the video, which is patently false - known in the first few minutes it WAS a terror attack)
 
Last edited:
my bad didn't see the other thread
 
my bad didn't see the other thread

Don't worry. I imagine there are enough comments for two threads on this subject. The possibilities for pissing people off have just doubled.
 
This is where our efforts should be focused, addressing actual problems, this is fair and good criticism. I just hope there's none of that "Obama let them die" bull****.
 
This is where our efforts should be focused, addressing actual problems, this is fair and good criticism. I just hope there's none of that "Obama let them die" bull****.

I quite agree.

As for the no names, I'm sure the parties know who they are. And Hillary does have a major role in that. I seem to recall she even stated that herself. So I don't think this is shocking.

I do find this important: The report found no evidence of the kind of political coverup that Republicans have long alleged.
 
This is where our efforts should be focused, addressing actual problems, this is fair and good criticism. I just hope there's none of that "Obama let them die" bull****.

I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
 
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.
No time for this ... gotta get to some of those Chris Christie threads .......
 
I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.

:agree: There is one puzzle I haven't figured out yet, though. If no one ever tells him what's going on, which unfortunately seems to be the case from what I've been reading, what criteria does he use to arrive at any decision he makes?` Seems kinda haphazard to me. Does he use an astrologer, or a dart board, or a "jobs jar," or something I haven't thought of yet?

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:`
 
:agree: There is one puzzle I haven't figured out yet, though. If no one ever tells him what's going on, which unfortunately seems to be the case from what I've been reading, what criteria does he use to arrive at any decision he makes?` Seems kinda haphazard to me. Does he use an astrologer, or a dart board, or a "jobs jar," or something I haven't thought of yet?

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:`
Good morning, mam. Hope you are well. I honestly don't know the vast metrics involved in Obama's decision making process, but it's certainly a curiosity. The result of an administration policy - the small footprint thing in Benghazi - is somehow not his responsibility. In fact, we are to believe that actually no one person can be named anywhere who is responsible which is doubly curious. I guess it was all just a wild and crazy hodgepodge of decisions which unfortunately resulted in some people being killed, but what the hell. People die every day.
 
Yeah, it's almost as good as the one in post #4 that you wholeheartedly agree with.

No, that would be incorrect. He speaks to the article and past threads of a similar bent. You speak to something that really isn't a position anywhere.
 
No, that would be incorrect. He speaks to the article and past threads of a similar bent. You speak to something that really isn't a position anywhere.

So then it's okay to mention that the president is responsible for his administration's policies because that's generally an accepted position everywhere - I didn't need to state it. I just thought that it would be appropriate to mention this acknowledged fact in light of the comment that Obama didn't have some significant input on the policy - even though no one has mentioned that he is personally responsible. I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim Obama just let them die.
 
So then it's okay to mention that the president is responsible for his administration's policies because that's generally an accepted position everywhere - I didn't need to state it. I just thought that it would be appropriate to mention this acknowledged fact in light of the comment that Obama didn't have some significant input on the policy - even though no one has mentioned that he is personally responsible. I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim Obama just let them die.

Yes, in the past there has been comments of "let them die." And he is clearly referring to that. No where has anyone said we should not hold Obama responsible. However, it is prudent not to get hyperbolic about his responsibility.
 
Yes, in the past there has been comments of "let them die." And he is clearly referring to that. No where has anyone said we should not hold Obama responsible. However, it is prudent not to get hyperbolic about his responsibility.
I'm sure there have been such comments. Ostensibly, Obama is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I'm not suggesting - hyperbolically or any other way - that he is personally responsible. However, because no other person has been identified as the chief architect of the policy concerning Benghazi, we are forced to look to him in the absence of any other named person. Somebody enunciated the policy.
 
I'm sure there have been such comments. Ostensibly, Obama is responsible for everything that happens under his watch. I'm not suggesting - hyperbolically or any other way - that he is personally responsible. However, because no other person has been identified as the chief architect of the policy concerning Benghazi, we are forced to look to him in the absence of any other named person. Somebody enunciated the policy.

Not the point. You suggested there was an argument to not hold him responsible. No such argument has been made, really ever. Only that it be properly framed, as you just did.
 
Not the point. You suggested there was an argument to not hold him responsible. No such argument has been made, really ever. Only that it be properly framed, as you just did.

There have been arguments to the effect that Obama didn't know, couldn't have known, and was thus not accountable for the result. Perhaps not here - I haven't read all the threads associated with this event here, and I don't intend to. The point is that if Obama is not responsible, and Wiseone seems to be making that point in post #4, then who in the hell is? I want a name of the Cabinet level person who made the policy decision regarding Benghazi because they are they only ones with the power to do that beside the president himself. So if it's not Obama...The effort has been to spread the responsibility so thin and so far as to not hold anyone accountable for anything, and claim is was a systemic failure. That's unacceptable.
 
There have been arguments to the effect that Obama didn't know, couldn't have known, and was thus not accountable for the result. Perhaps not here - I haven't read all the threads associated with this event here, and I don't intend to. The point is that if Obama is not responsible, and Wiseone seems to be making that point in post #4, then who in the hell is? I want a name of the Cabinet level person who made the policy decision regarding Benghazi because they are they only ones with the power to do that beside the president himself. So if it's not Obama...The effort has been to spread the responsibility so thin and so far as to not hold anyone accountable for anything, and claim is was a systemic failure. That's unacceptable.

you don't think the possibillity exists that what caused the tragic deaths in benghazi was simply bureaucratic confusion?
 
you don't think the possibillity exists that what caused the tragic deaths in benghazi was simply bureaucratic confusion?

In just-declassified testimony, General Hamm (AFRICOM CG) testified that "within minutes" of the attack starting, live drone coverage was available in both his command headquarters, and being consumed by Washington, and that he briefed the SecDef and Chairman JCS that it was a terrorist attack before they went to brief the President. This went up too high too rapidly to be blamed on bureaucratic fumbling.
 
Qaadafi wasn't perfect, he had his torture prisons, but he was damn side better then the AQ thugs that we backed.
He renounced terrorism, and allowed the CIA to roam east Africa, was vehemtly anti-AQ

bin Qumu seals the deal for me that we knowingly backed rebels that WERE lead by "AQ core" despite States protestation that it wasn't "AQ core".

Then State turns around and declares Ansar al-Sharia as part of AQAP - when really only the "Tunis affiliate" is linked to AQAP.

Then the little matter of the LIFG (LIbyan Islamic Fighting Force), that sent fighters to Syria, along with Libya weapons.
Absolutely stonewalled that when Rand Paul tried to dig deep .

But can you imagine the US electorate actually trying to follow this?

One very good reason the NYT article said "no direct link to AQ", but didn't DEFINE AQ. Dissemble or just lie.

It's all a smokescreen for the Obama failure to just stick to the UN "no fly" - if he wanted to dosimply that, but he went for regime change instead.

Better off not getting involved with "humanitarian war", but we have to stick ourselves into foreign civil wars.

Afganistan/ Yemen ( to an extent) now I heard something about a small nmber of troops in Somalia - which isn't a bad idea,
but since there isn't really a mission statement there, can blow up.

Anyways, the partisans managed to obfuscate this to the level that "the building did it" as Krauthammer said.

NO ONE MENTIONS THE ****ING WAR -they still support assassinating Qaddafi for regime change.
"qaddafi was a dictator" is still the meme

Stuipid ****ing Americans, have no desire to dig any deeper than what fish wrapping paper like NYT's said,
or not bother to try to undertsand just how bad an idea the Libya war was.

Ther "building did it" my arse
 
you don't think the possibillity exists that what caused the tragic deaths in benghazi was simply bureaucratic confusion?
more likely a covert CIA ops gone bad. the Anex was supposed to retrieve Libyan weapons. Stevens went jogging in Bengazi many mornings.

The militias, and Libyan police cars were the security. keeping the consulate low profile, would make the Libyans happy.
They wouldn't want to visit/deal with actual US Embassy guards -too risky for them


All of which shows me the consulate was deliberately under-protected; I THINK ( but cannot prove) Steven was playing fast and loose with Libyan warlords.

Making deals for weapons (manpads, etc.) that the Annex was shipping to Syria.
We know Libyan weapons were being smugged in -prior to 9-11-12

They were probably directed to the Syrian "moderates", before the current internecine jihadist/Islamists/moderate Sunni war.

Rand Paul did try to dig into this - was shot down - can't testify about CIA. I'm not much on conspiracys, but this one does all fit.
 
In just-declassified testimony, General Hamm (AFRICOM CG) testified that "within minutes" of the attack starting, live drone coverage was available in both his command headquarters, and being consumed by Washington, and that he briefed the SecDef and Chairman JCS that it was a terrorist attack before they went to brief the President. This went up too high too rapidly to be blamed on bureaucratic fumbling.

This was mentioned early on in the conversation regarding the events in Benghazi and summarily dismissed by the left. The hope was that the smoke generating equipment would shroud the entire event from scrutiny and the rest would be left to bureaucratic malaise and dissemination. It hasn't worked out that way. I believe the hope now is to release as little as necessary far enough from the coming elections so as to limit the damage in the national memory. Any sense of national honor was thrown overboard long ago in favor of political necessity.
 
My bottom line on all this: Rice lied about Qaddafi passing out Viagra to troops, and encouraging them to "use rape as a weapon of war"

While rape is a weapon of war in Africa it wasn't the widespead claims boht Susan Rice & Hillary Clinton claimed.
Making Qaadafi an evil facilitator of rape


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week said she was "deeply concerned" that Gaddafi's troops were participating in widespread rape in Libya.
"Rape, physical intimidation, sexual harassment, and even so-called 'virginity tests' have taken place in countries throughout the region," she said.

Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty, who was in Libya for three months after the start of the uprising,
says that "we have not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped
Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

Rice lied, Hillary backed it up, and the war became against the despot (Qaddafi) who systematically used rape. as a war weapon.

Obama went along for the ride. But there is the real blame - Hillary and Rice once again.
 
As no one said that, nice strawman. :coffeepap

I agree. Holding Obama responsible for his policy decisions is outrageous.

He and other folks should be held responsible, things like "Agencies not communicating with each other" which prevented intelligence from being shared and perhaps prevented the State Department from having as much warning about these attacks as it should have is exactly where we should be looking and holding people responsible, President not excluded.

But the idea that Obama, less than two months before an election, would literally make a decision to "let" four Americans die because for God knows what reasons is just plain silly. I use the word 'let' because I'm trying to especially highlight the argument that it was a specific conscious decision on his part to not save these people when it was in his power. It makes no sense whatsoever from either a pragmatic standpoint, again what looks better 2 months before an election a heroic save or 4 deaths, or a human standpoint that any human would just four guys die because he's that much of an asshole.
 
He and other folks should be held responsible, things like "Agencies not communicating with each other" which prevented intelligence from being shared and perhaps prevented the State Department from having as much warning about these attacks as it should have is exactly where we should be looking and holding people responsible, President not excluded.

But the idea that Obama, less than two months before an election, would literally make a decision to "let" four Americans die because for God knows what reasons is just plain silly. I use the word 'let' because I'm trying to especially highlight the argument that it was a specific conscious decision on his part to not save these people when it was in his power. It makes no sense whatsoever from either a pragmatic standpoint, again what looks better 2 months before an election a heroic save or 4 deaths, or a human standpoint that any human would just four guys die because he's that much of an asshole.

Okay. I think they tried to play a risky game and got burned, which appeared predictable given the events preceding the attack. After all, who would think that an attack on Americans might occur on 9/11 in the middle east? Anyway, we'll see how it turns out, if it does actually turn into something in which people shoulder responsibility. I have my doubts given the obfuscation up to this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom