• 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!

Was the Obama Administration Incompetent or Corrupt in its response to Benghazi?

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is now out that the Administration knew within 24 hours that the attacks in Benghazi were part of a planned terrorist operation by either al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The Timeline of Administration Statements on the Libya Attack

...I think it’s important to note with regards to that protest that there are protests taking place in different countries across the world that are responding to the movie that has circulated on the Internet. As Secretary Clinton said today, the United States government had nothing to do with this movie. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. America has a history of religious tolerance and respect for religious beliefs that goes back to our nation’s founding. We are stronger because we are the home to people of all religions, including millions of Muslims, and we reject the denigration of religion. We also believe that there is no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence.” — White House spokesman Jay Carney, news briefing, Sept. 13


“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over n awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

— Clinton, transfer of remains ceremony, Sept. 14


“I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.”

— Carney, news briefing, Sept. 14


“Based on the best information we have to date ... it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.... We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.


— Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Sept. 16 ...


These are administration officials arguing that instead the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a spontaneous protest that was connected to the propaganda operation run by al-Qaeda to coincide with and provide cover for the assault..... and we now know that the administration then knew that that claim was wrong.

So. Why?






[later edit] Dangit! I hit enter at the wrong time and it didn't let me have a poll. Can a moderator please put up the options:


1. The administration was incapable of keeping up with events
2. The administration chose to attempt a cover up to keep from admitting its' failure to stop a planned terrorist assault about which they had warning
3. The administration was attempting a deception campaign against foreign audiences in the pursuit of policy goals (please describe)
 
I'm also getting the sense that branches of the executive had no real coordination with regards to a response. Some statements directly contradict others.
 
one vote for incompetence then. but what kind of administration has principals who make declarative public statements with information that they know is either inaccurate or insufficient?
 
Can someone who is concerned about such things explain to someone like me, who has been avoiding these kinds of stories like the plague, what exactly the fuss is about here? As far as I know, mislabeling it as a terrorist attack or not a terrorist attack for a couple days doesn't actually have any practical consequences. The error didn't threaten national security. And the people who were ultimately misinformed (i.e. the public) mostly just went about their day without acting any differently. Sounds to me like some people in the Obama Administration thought it was terrorism, others didn't, and they just didn't do a very good job coordinating their response. That's hardly unusual in breaking news events.

So I guess my question is this: What do you think the administration should have done differently on this issue, and how would doing so make the world a better place?
 
Can someone who is concerned about such things explain to someone like me, who has been avoiding these kinds of stories like the plague, what exactly the fuss is about here?

Administration officials did not tell the truth (and may have lied) to the public about the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. That is sort of significant.
 
one vote for incompetence then. but what kind of administration has principals who make declarative public statements with information that they know is either inaccurate or insufficient?

I don't know but Romney's response sure does fit that description. Even Republicans agreed it was STUPID.
 
Administration officials did not tell the truth (and may have lied) to the public about the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. That is sort of significant.

So there was no murder? How did they lie about it then?
 
So there was no murder? How did they lie about it then?

They knew that it was a planned terrorist attack and then apparently they went on television and swore up and down that it was instead all that stupid youtube video.

If the officials they put on television knew what the Administration that sent them knew, then that means that they lied about national security and dead Americans in order to help the President's reelection campaign. If they didn't know, then that means that he Administration lied to them in order to get them to fool us in order to help the Presidents' reelection campaign.
 
I don't know but Romney's response sure does fit that description. Even Republicans agreed it was STUPID.


You are mistaking Romneys' response to the Cairo Embassy Tweet to his response to the attack on Benghazi.
 
Could it have been a terrorist attack that was orchestrated by the imminent release of this film. Then, the terrorists could have infiltrated the crowds and incited a spontaneous riot. So both answers could be true.

I'm not a detective so I'm just guessing here.
 
Could it have been a terrorist attack that was orchestrated by the imminent release of this film. Then, the terrorists could have infiltrated the crowds and incited a spontaneous riot. So both answers could be true.

I'm not a detective so I'm just guessing here.
except that we now know that this:

We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
-Susan Rice

was either ignorance, or deception, as they did, in fact, have information that lead precisely to that conclusion.
 
Ignorance, deception, confusion, misinformation, disinformation. Just another day in Washington really.




except that we now know that this:



was either ignorance, or deception, as they did, in fact, have information that lead precisely to that conclusion.
 
Administration officials did not tell the truth (and may have lied) to the public about the murder of our Ambassador and three other Americans in a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11. That is sort of significant.

For what purpose would they lie about it? What was the lie intended to accomplish? :confused:
Ya I'm still not understanding what the fuss is about here...
 
For what purpose would they lie about it? What was the lie intended to accomplish? :confused:
Ya I'm still not understanding what the fuss is about here...


It shifts the focus of blame in an election year. If it were a terrorist attack that could be viewed as a failure by the administration to protect us from terrorism. If it was a riot caused by a film the blame goes squarely on the filmmaker.
 
It shifts the focus of blame in an election year. If it were a terrorist attack that could be viewed as a failure by the administration to protect us from terrorism. If it was a riot caused by a film the blame goes squarely on the filmmaker.

Or...
Maybe some of the officials simply didn't have all the facts in the immediate aftermath of the breaking news story, and made the perfectly reasonable assumption that the murder of our Libyan ambassador was connected to the angry mob outside the Libyan consulate. I made the same assumption when I first heard about it; it hardly seems like a huge stretch.

Incidentally, it's not even clear what the political ramifications of a terrorist attack versus a riot would be. Is it really such a no-brainer that lying about it would help Obama that State Department spokespeople would risk their own credibility to do it? Especially when more information ALWAYS comes out in the press in the aftermath of breaking news stories?

Ockham's Razor, people.
 
but what kind of administration has principals who make declarative public statements with information that they know is either inaccurate or insufficient?

The same kind of administration as practically every one we have ever had. Doesnt let the Obama administration off the hook for the Rice comments, though. They were in the wrong.
 
It shifts the focus of blame in an election year. If it were a terrorist attack that could be viewed as a failure by the administration to protect us from terrorism. If it was a riot caused by a film the blame goes squarely on the filmmaker.


Straight and to the Point_ you Nailed it- Exactly"
 
reply to CPWILL
"1. The administration was incapable of keeping up with events
2. The administration chose to attempt a cover up to keep from admitting its' failure to stop a planned terrorist assault about which they had warning
3. The administration was attempting a deception campaign against foreign audiences in the pursuit of policy goals (please describe) "



I think all of these are true because we were the instigators behind the insurrection that overthrew Qaddaffi. We unseated a stable ally that was a terrific benefactor for the African continent and installed some ragtag bozos so we would get the OIL and exploration rights. The politicians always expect to control the storyline with the "Mighty Wurlitzer," but definitely went too far in this instance. Our Energy Corporations are the power behind the throne in these resource wars and nobody talks about it.
 
The never told the truth about our involvement in Libya in the first place.

Follow the currency and you'll find the truth. Gaddafi was going to switch oil sales from the Dollar to a new African gold currency called the Dinar...what happen next? We supported a group of rebels that we didn't (still don't) know and they overthrew the government. Soon thereafter: The Libyan Central bank was set up backed by the U.S. Dollar.


That same reason was for our involvement in Iraq. They claim WMDs and terrorist links under Hussein, but that was all proven false. What really happened? Hussein switched sales of oil from the dollar to the euro. We invaded and soon thereafter they started to sell oil on the dollar again and took a big in profits because the euro was worth more than the dollar.

When you follow the currency...the truth starts to become pretty clear. Our government is doing all they can to keep our currency as the world reserve. As more countries attempt to pull out of it...we become more hostile. When (not if) our currency loses its world reserve status...massive inflation will occur to a point where the dollars in your wallets and bank accounts will be worthless.

This is our future under the current plan and most proposed plans.
 
It is now out that the Administration knew within 24 hours that the attacks in Benghazi were part of a planned terrorist operation by either al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Libyagate.

The administration has been in 'cover up' mode to hide their own incompetence since the start.
 
Regardless of the POTUS, the government will always fail due to bad intelligence, poor coordination, lousy information, bad judgement, and miserable communication to our citizens.

No different than the pathetic response to Katrina under Bush II.

The government as a whole is flawed - the party affiliation of the leader at the time just gives the other party something to complain about.

The blame is always on everybody's shoulders - Congress, POTUS, cabinet leaders, etc.
 
Can someone who is concerned about such things explain to someone like me, who has been avoiding these kinds of stories like the plague, what exactly the fuss is about here? As far as I know, mislabeling it as a terrorist attack or not a terrorist attack for a couple days doesn't actually have any practical consequences. The error didn't threaten national security. And the people who were ultimately misinformed (i.e. the public) mostly just went about their day without acting any differently. Sounds to me like some people in the Obama Administration thought it was terrorism, others didn't, and they just didn't do a very good job coordinating their response. That's hardly unusual in breaking news events.

So I guess my question is this: What do you think the administration should have done differently on this issue, and how would doing so make the world a better place?

Its a pattern with this administration to lie about events that happen to cover their ass, especially in and election year and it also shows how incompetent they are when it comes to foreign policy.
 
It shifts the focus of blame in an election year. If it were a terrorist attack that could be viewed as a failure by the administration to protect us from terrorism. If it was a riot caused by a film the blame goes squarely on the filmmaker.

The film was on the net a week before the murders took place........
 
Its a pattern with this administration to lie about events that happen to cover their ass,

OK, well let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're correct and this was indeed an intentional, orchestrated (if poorly executed) attempt by the Obama Administration to "cover their ass." Then my next question is this: How would it have "covered their ass" if people thought it was an angry mob as opposed to a planned terrorist attack? I really have no idea what the political consequences of those two different scenarios would be...it hardly seems like a no-brainer that Obama would somehow be better off politically if people thought it was an angry mob as opposed to terrorists.

especially in and election year and it also shows how incompetent they are when it comes to foreign policy.

You seem to have ignored the original question I posed, and instead opted for partisan mouth-breathing. Here it is again, for your convenience: What do you think the administration should have done differently on this issue, and how would doing so make the world a better place? Something more than "zomg don't lie to us" please.
 
Last edited:
For what purpose would they lie about it? What was the lie intended to accomplish? :confused:
Ya I'm still not understanding what the fuss is about here...

A "terrorist attack" means that Obama's apology tour and subsequent policy of appeasement hasn't worked. The savages are still at war with us, and his "leading to the rear" (i.e., retreat) only encourages more attacks. If the citizens realize he is herding us toward another 9/11 attack, they might not re-elect him and then he would have to pay for Michelle's vacations...
 
Back
Top Bottom