Obama vs. Nixon

calamity said:

Alleged terrorists who ended up being completely innocent of terrorism. Funny how your sort always leaves that part out.

Click to expand...

there was not even a suspicion that our ambassador was anything other than a diplomat. how many innocents died in 9-11?

TurtleDude said:

there was not even a suspicion that our ambassador was anything other than a diplomat. how many innocents died in 9-11?

Click to expand...

Roughly 3000. And, yes. Our ambassador came to a bitter cold end. Sad. Infuriating. And, definitely a reason to seek a scapegoat. But, I think he knew the score. He was on his own. Our embassies are not fortresses. The man had courage. You all diminish him with your whining.

calamity said:

Roughly 3000. And, yes. Our ambassador came to a bitter cold end. Sad. Infuriating. And, definitely a reason to seek a scapegoat. But, I think he knew the score. He was on his own. Our embassies are not fortresses. The man had courage. You all diminish him with your whining.

Click to expand...

LOL your sad attempt to justify the incompetence of the administration is hilarious. the Embassy is America. Our Military was prevented from Protecting AMERICA

TurtleDude said:

LOL your sad attempt to justify the incompetence of the administration is hilarious. the Embassy is America. Our Military was prevented from Protecting AMERICA

Click to expand...

Oh puh-lease. Save that rhetoric for your Fox News worshiping friends. Diplomatic outposts are not fortresses. If they were, they would not be very diplomatic.

RSOs depend upon Marine Security Guards, U.S. Navy Seabees, surveillance detection teams, local guards, cleared American guards, local investigators, host government officials, and other DS elements domestically and abroad to provide assistance in combating criminal, intelligence, and terrorist threats against U.S. interests worldwide. These entities play a crucial role in the DS security efforts overseas.

At our highest threat posts, RSOs may often require further security assistance. In those instances, DS dispatches Mobile Security Teams from Washington to conduct training for embassy personnel, their dependents, and local guards in protective tactics such as attack recognition, self-defense, hostage survival, and defensive driving. These teams also provide emergency security support to overseas posts, including protective security for COMs, surveillance detection operations, and assistance with post evacuations. In cases where the host country is either unable or unwilling to provide necessary security for the conduct of American diplomacy, specially trained DS special agents lead contractor-provided personal protection teams and guard services in areas of ongoing conflict.

Securing Our Embassies Overseas

Click to expand...

Sometimes keeping it real goes wrong...this was one of those times.

calamity said:

Oh puh-lease. Save that rhetoric for you Fox News worshiping friends. Diplomatic outposts are not fortresses. If they were, they would not be very diplomatic.


Sometimes keeping it real goes wrong...this was one of those times.

Click to expand...

I guess you never heard the term AIR MOBILE

TurtleDude said:

I guess you never heard the term AIR MOBILE

Click to expand...

You do know many embassies were attacked during Bush's watch. Correct?

The State Department had warned of a potential strike against the Saudi days before gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village and two others killing 36 people and wounding 160. This was the most devastating attack on a State Department employees to occur under Bush. The Saudi government cracked down on terrorists group but that did not prevent another attack to occur a year later in Jeddah.

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing - PolicyMic

Click to expand...

calamity said:

You do know many embassies were attacked during Bush's watch. Correct?

Click to expand...

we have any ambassador raped and murdered? Bush called back how many defensive counters?

TurtleDude said:

we have any ambassador raped and murdered? Bush called back how many defensive counters?

Click to expand...

Did we have any 9-11 like attacks under Obama?

I didn't think so.

calamity said:

Did we have any 9-11 like attacks under Obama?

I didn't think so.

Click to expand...

That's really stupid. It would make sense if Bush knew what was coming and told an effective response team to stand down

Oozlefinch said:

I can point at a lot of Presidents I did not like, Carter, Clinton, Johnson, but at least most of them when things in their administration went bad they would stand up and take responsibility. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".

Click to expand...

If Obama had a “The Buck Stops Here” sign, it would include an arrow pointing to a picture of President Bush.

calamity said:

Oh puh-lease. Save that rhetoric for your Fox News worshiping friends. Diplomatic outposts are not fortresses. If they were, they would not be very diplomatic.


Sometimes keeping it real goes wrong...this was one of those times.

Click to expand...

But when they request more security, it is a good idea to actually listen to them instead of reducing the security they have.

One signed by Stevens and titled “LIBYA’S FRAGILE SECURITY DETERIORIATES AS TRIBAL RIVALRIES, POWER PLAYS AND EXTREMISM INTENSIFY,” dated June 25, 2012, assess the increase in violence. ”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

Click to expand...

Another cable from Stevens, titled “The Guns of August; security in eastern Libya” and dated August 8, 2012, states “Since the eve of the (July) elections, Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape during the Ramadan holiday.” Stevens describes the incidents as “organized, but this is not an organized campaign.” The Supreme Security Council, the interim security force, he says, “has not coalesced into a stabilizing force and provides little deterrence.”

Click to expand...

A cable signed by Stevens on the day of his murder, September 11, described a meeting with the Acting Principal Officer of the Supreme Security Council in Benghazi, commander Fawzi Younis, who “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure)…”

The documents also included an “ACTION MEMO” for Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy dated December 27, 2011, and written by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman. With the subject line: “Future of Operations in Benghazi, Libya,” the memo states: “With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S. direct hire employees.”

Click to expand...

One of the key conversations in the documents begins on February 11, at 5:29 pm, when Shawn Crowley, a foreign service officer at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, writes: “Apologies for being a broken record, but beginning tomorrow Benghazi will be down to two agents…We have no drivers and new local guard contract employees have no experience driving armored vehicles…”

On February 11, 1:13 pm, Regional Security Officer of the Libyan Embassy Eric Nordstrom emails State Department officials, cc-ing then-Ambassador Gene Cretz, saying he’ll try to send personnel from the Security Support Team to Benghazi. “I’ll speak with our SST personnel to se if they can free up 1 or 2 bodies for Benghazi….While the status of Benghazi remains undefined, DS” – Diplomatic Security – “is hesitant to devout (sic) resources and as I indicated previously, this has severely hampered operations in Benghazi. That often means that DS agents are there guarding a compound with 2 other DOS personnel present. That often means that outreach and reporting is non-existent.”

Norstrom notes that the British have “a 5 person team assigned to just their head of mission, so they have made a commitment to maintain a larger presence in Benghazi than the USG,” the U.S. government.

Click to expand...

At 8:53 pm. James Bacigalupo, the Regional Director Near East Asia Bureau of Diplomatic Security DSS for the State Department, emails Nordstrom, “Call me, I am surprised at your statement that ‘DS is hesitant to devote resources as I (you) have indicated previously that has severely limited operations in Benghazi.’”

Norstrom responds on Sunday, February 12: 8:58 pm “we have had multiple times previously had no movements in Benghazi because we had only 2 DS agents on the ground. Havingno movements for upwards for 10 days severely limits operations in Benghazi. I’ve been placed in a very difficult spot when the Ambassador tells me that I need to support Benghazi but can’t direct MSD” – Mobile Security Detachment – ” there and been advised that DS isn’t going to provide more than 3 DS agents over the long term.”

Click to expand...

This “normalization,” the GOP congressman write, “appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration’s decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment – including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft – without taking into account the reality on the ground. In an interview with Mr. Nordstrom, he maintained that the State Department routinely made decisions about security in early 2012 without first consulting him.” The congressmen submit ten questions for the president to answer.

Click to expand...

Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi - ABC News

This is not "rhetoric", the Embassy had been screaming for months that they needed more security personnel, all requests were denied or ignored.

A March 2012 memo (mistakenly cited as 2011) from the Research & Information Support Center titled “Progress Elusive in Libya,” based on open-source reporting, states that in late December 2011 “reports indicated that al-Qa’ida leadership in Pakistan had sent ‘experienced jihadists to Libya to build a new base of operations in the country. Between May and December 2011, one of these jihadists had recruited 200 fighters in the eastern part of the country. Documents seized in Iraq indicate that many foreign fighters who participated in the Iraqi insurgency hailed from eastern Libya. This small batch of fighters would have been dealt with quickly by a central authority, were it in place. Until a stronger national army or guard force is developed, rural Libya will remain fertile territory for terrorist groups such as al-Qai’da in the Islamic Maghreb.”

Click to expand...

When you find out that an enemy is massing troops, you do not lower your security or leave it at a shoestring level, you increase it. This is so simple it should not even need to be repeated. There was a threat, this threat was known at all levels, yet the Administration wanted to give the impression that things were "normalizing", and thought that sending in more security would look like we had no faith in the Libyan Government.

Bad call, and people died for it. But they new the risk, that was their job and sometimes bad things happen.

I accept that, as do many others. What I do not accept however is the Administration trying to cover it's butt by saying it was a riot over a movie, then covering it's butt by getting happy little minions to go around saying "nothing to see here, move along". It is this denial and passing the buck that pisses me off. Not that it happened, but that over a year later the Administration still acts like it had no idea there was a problem, and that they want people to believe they did everything they could.

I accept mistakes, I don't accept this. Because over a year later they still want us to believe they could have done nothing to help prevent it.

calamity said:

You do know many embassies were attacked during Bush's watch. Correct?

Click to expand...

And did the Administration then simply whine and cry and say it was not their fault, or did they act proactively and say they will try and prevent it from happening again?

You still fail to realize it is not the attack that pisses so many of us off, it is the Administrations reaction before and after the attack.

calamity said:

You do know many embassies were attacked during Bush's watch. Correct?

Click to expand...

I know there were bombs that were set off outside of the walls of American embassies and even some assaults within the embassy boundaries but no successful attack upon the embassies.

It's interesting, but I guess it's liberal revisionism now if a car bomb goes off on the streets outside of an American embassy it's now considered to be a successful attack against America embassy.

But for some reason, the attack upon the American consulate in Benghazi was all about a YouTube video. :lamo
Really nothing to be laughing about. But the Obama administration laughed it off, didn't they just to get Barack reelected at only the cost of four Americans.
###### unbelievable and they got away with it and the MSM again gave Obama a complete pass even though blood flowed.

###### unbelievable.

APACHERAT said:

I know there were bombs that were set off outside of the walls of American embassies and even some assaults within the embassy boundaries but no successful attack upon the embassies.

It's interesting, but I guess it's liberal revisionism now if a car bomb goes off on the streets outside of an American embassy it's now considered to be a successful attack against America embassy.

But for some reason, the attack upon the American consulate in Benghazi was all about a YouTube video. :lamo
Really nothing to be laughing about. But the Obama administration laughed it off, didn't they just to get Barack reelected at only the cost of four Americans.
###### unbelievable and they got away with it and the MSM again gave Obama a complete pass even though blood flowed.

###### unbelievable.

Click to expand...

Well, conservative revisionism tells us that "Bush kept us safe."

Oozlefinch said:

And did the Administration then simply whine and cry and say it was not their fault, or did they act proactively and say they will try and prevent it from happening again?

You still fail to realize it is not the attack that pisses so many of us off, it is the Administrations reaction before and after the attack.

Click to expand...

THey whined incessantly about the attacks not being their fault starting on 9-12-2001.

TurtleDude said:

That's really stupid. It would make sense if Bush knew what was coming and told an effective response team to stand down

Click to expand...

You really live deep in the little Right Wing bubble. Don't you? That's a lot of denial for a supposed Ivy Leaguer.
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the President's Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday, August 6, 2001. The brief warned of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda 36 days before the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a brief of important classified information on national security collected by various U.S. intelligence agencies given to the president and a select group of senior officials. On August 6, 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency delivered a President's Daily Brief to President Bush, who was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The existence of the memo was secret until it was leaked in 2002.[2] CBS Evening News reported on the document on May 15.

...Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and General Richard Myers have stated that contrary to repeated claims,[4] the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting".

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

...read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster. An intelligence official and a member of the Bush administration both told me in interviews that the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein...

Click to expand...

calamity said:

THey whined incessantly about the attacks not being their fault starting on 9-12-2001.

Click to expand...

Wow, really? Quote please?

Also he never tried to say the attacks never happened, or that they were something else, like some spontaneous reaction to some movie release.

Oozlefinch said:

Wow, really? Quote please?

Also he never tried to say the attacks never happened, or that they were something else, like some spontaneous reaction to some movie release.

Click to expand...

"They hate us for our Freedoms." Sound familiar?


You people really do live deep down in the memory hole.

TurtleDude said:

LOL your sad attempt to justify the incompetence of the administration is hilarious. the Embassy is America. Our Military was prevented from Protecting AMERICA

Click to expand...

Our troops are also "America." Nixon had already lied about bringing Vietnam to a close, and almost 30,000 American soldiers were condemned to death in a pointless quagmire that brought us nothing after Paris.

Even if we assume that Obama was irresponsible for what happened at Benghazi, it still doesn't compare to Nixon's act of sabotage at Paris. 30,000 > 4

calamity said:

"They hate us for our Freedoms." Sound familiar?


You people really do live deep down in the memory hole.

Click to expand...

Wow, really?

That is all you can come up with?

Oozlefinch said:

Wow, really?

That is all you can come up with?

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way. Whining about Obama's 9-11 in Benghazi, an attack in a foreign country, while ignoring Bush's huge faux pas on September 11, 2001, which resulted in successful attacks in New York and Washington DC, is what makes the Right Wing such a joke to the sane ones among us.

calamity said:

Let's put it this way. Whining about Obama's 9-11 in Benghazi, an attack in a foreign country, while ignoring Bush's huge faux pas on September 11, 2001, which resulted in successful attacks in New York and Washington DC, is what makes the Right Wing such a joke to the sane ones among us.

Click to expand...

I am currently working in the military intel world. Every single day I get a product that states "imminent attack on an unknown FOB in XXX province, attack forces unknown, date unknown" so basically.... somewhere in an area the size of Texas, there will be an attack by someone, sometime...

I am not excusing Bush. There was a lot of FAIL there.... BUT, missing an attack using a TTP (tactics/techniques/proceedure) that had no history, had no date, and covered an the entire US and all it's territories... is somewhat understandable. I see these reports every day... all day...

99% of these intel report are garbage. The really good analysts are the ones that can find the fly poop in the pepper... Those guys should have been the ones advising the President in the days prior to 9/11. But still.... even those reports are all saying the same thing, Attack somewhere, sometime, of some type.

I was gonna say that you guys all went full retard in the last page or two, basically going into the whole:

OBAMA SUX!

NO BUSH R DA SUX!

idiot rants I was making fun of before, and maybe try to help all of you understand something, but Chiefgator beat me to the punch on the explanation:

Chiefgator said:

I am currently working in the military intel world. Every single day I get a product that states "imminent attack on an unknown FOB in XXX province, attack forces unknown, date unknown" so basically.... somewhere in an area the size of Texas, there will be an attack by someone, sometime...

I am not excusing Bush. There was a lot of FAIL there.... BUT, missing an attack using a TTP (tactics/techniques/proceedure) that had no history, had no date, and covered an the entire US and all it's territories... is somewhat understandable. I see these reports every day... all day...

99% of these intel report are garbage. The really good analysts are the ones that can find the fly poop in the pepper... Those guys should have been the ones advising the President in the days prior to 9/11. But still.... even those reports are all saying the same thing, Attack somewhere, sometime, of some type.

Click to expand...

There's so many warnings every day: I mean I know most people aren't familiar with intelligence work, but don't highlight it by saying completely dumb things. So since Chief already took care of it, I'll just laugh at you guys for your stupid partisan bickering. Worthless people.

Chiefgator said:

I am currently working in the military intel world. Every single day I get a product that states "imminent attack on an unknown FOB in XXX province, attack forces unknown, date unknown" so basically.... somewhere in an area the size of Texas, there will be an attack by someone, sometime...

I am not excusing Bush. There was a lot of FAIL there.... BUT, missing an attack using a TTP (tactics/techniques/proceedure) that had no history, had no date, and covered an the entire US and all it's territories... is somewhat understandable. I see these reports every day... all day...

99% of these intel report are garbage. The really good analysts are the ones that can find the fly poop in the pepper... Those guys should have been the ones advising the President in the days prior to 9/11. But still.... even those reports are all saying the same thing, Attack somewhere, sometime, of some type.

Click to expand...

We weren't even prepared enough to send fighter jets after those hijacked airliners. Hours passed and nothing was done, even after the first jet hit the tower. The jet that eventually hit the Pentagon flew lazily around DC and we did not one thing. Total screw up on our (Bush's) part.

The Benghazi faux pas is nothing compared to that. Hell, Boston was more of a screw up than Benghazi.

calamity said:

Hours passed and nothing was done, even after the first jet hit the tower.

Click to expand...

*blinks*



Now I know we are dealing with somebody that has absolutely no connection with reality.

No, it was not "hours", try 32 minutes (8:46) from the time of the first hijacking (8:14). And only 9 minutes form the time that NORAD was first told of the first hijacking (8:37). The aircraft were actually scrambling at the time of the first impact.

You really do not research anything, do you? You just make things up as you go along, hoping that everybody will buy your Kool-Aid.