• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

Page 23 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Ah, then you should learn to read more carefully because the discussion was about attacking the whole Islamic religion, not the violent extremists who happen to be Muslim.



Perhaps not, but Christian extremists have committed many other violent attacks in the name of Christianity. You can start with modern day bombings of abortion clinics and murders of doctors, then work your way back through history.
My reading skills are just fine thank you. Again i ask you why Islam is above rebuke? People insult other religions in totality daily. How often recently have we heard about Mitt Romneys special underwear? I mean, he's never been a missionary so special underwear not found.

There's usually at least one anti semitic joke on late night television. People talk daily about Christians not believing in science and generally being ignorant. Catholics and child molesters.

What makes Islam above this sort of criticism? What makes it special?
And why do bad acts on the part of other religions excuse Islam? Do we need to go back to the Holy Crusades?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
My reading skills are just fine thank you. Again i ask you why Islam is above rebuke? People insult other religions in totality daily. How often recently have we heard about Mitt Romneys special underwear? I mean, he's never been a missionary so special underwear not found.

There's usually at least one anti semitic joke on late night television. People talk daily about Christians not believing in science and generally being ignorant. Catholics and child molesters.

What makes Islam above this sort of criticism? What makes it special?
And why do bad acts on the part of other religions excuse Islam? Do we need to go back to the Holy Crusades?
OK, got it. You were changing the subject.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
At minimum this article demonstrates our current leadership is unfit to lead!

http://www.cbsnews.c...nsulate-attack/
Naturally, you and the O'Bashers ignore this part of the same article:
As to why the Counterterrorism Security Group was not convened, National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News "From the moment the President was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses."
So they didn't formally convene the CSG because it was being led at a higher level ... but CSG members were included.

Once again, it sounds like we have Obama haters cherry-picking details out of context to support their preordained conclusions. It's possible Vietor is lying, of course, but you fail to present any evidence of that.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Naturally, you and the O'Bashers ignore this part of the same article:
So they didn't formally convene the CSG because it was being led at a higher level ... but CSG members were included.

Once again, it sounds like we have Obama haters cherry-picking details out of context to support their preordained conclusions. It's possible Vietor is lying, of course, but you fail to present any evidence of that.
What propose would be served by selectively activating certain members of a larger group short of silencing dissenting opinions?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
What propose would be served by selectively activating certain members of a larger group short of silencing dissenting opinions?
I don't know about your real-world experience, but I know in mine meetings with 50 people are so much more efficient and productive than a meeting with the right 10 people. (Hint: NOT!)

/facepalm
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
What propose would be served by selectively activating certain members of a larger group short of silencing dissenting opinions?
Excellent suggestion. When I am Lord Emperor of America, I will on all intelligence matters meet the entire CIA. All of it. The director down through every last agent and file clerk. Military matters, the entire military. Brilliant!
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
The amount of I-hate-obama-he-must-be-doing-every-thing-wrong faux outrage is reaching deafening levels. I really can't wait till the election is over......

Seriously, _try_ reading an article without the above assumption.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
I don't know about your real-world experience, but I know in mine meetings with 50 people are so much more efficient and productive than a meeting with the right 10 people. (Hint: NOT!)

/facepalm
So if the CSG is overstaffed, isn't that a separate issue?

You did kind of make my point for me though: the selection criteria for the "right 10 people". Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't the right 10. How were they selected?





Excellent suggestion. When I am Lord Emperor of America, I will on all intelligence matters meet the entire CIA. All of it. The director down through every last agent and file clerk. Military matters, the entire military. Brilliant!
Read the same answer above. Plus don't be a fucking troll.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
So if the CSG is overstaffed, isn't that a separate issue?

You did kind of make my point for me though: the selection criteria for the "right 10 people". Hindsight being 20/20, they weren't the right 10. How were they selected?







Read the same answer above. Plus don't be a fucking troll.
Then don't be a fucking idiot. You don't need every member of a group in the room when you discussing strategy or determining a response, in particular if you have the leadership of the group and if the rest of the group has shit to do. The administration selected a number of people it felt best suited to determine a response. It has nothing to do with the organization overstaffed any more than your local police department not sending every cop they have to deal with any and every crime proves they are overstaffed.

Further, I'm not even willing to grant you that these weren't the right people. They very well could have been the brightest and most qualified and most experienced the US has to offer, and still fail to find an adequate solution the situation on the ground being what it was. In all of this you are assuming there was a good answer to the Benghazi attack as it was happening; you don't know that. That in mind, how about you back the fuck up and wait for evidence of actual incompetence before crying incompetence?
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Benghazi Timeline

The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


The timeline inidcates at best the current administration is grossly incompetant and at worse willfully decieved the american public for political reasons.



When the Admin began to be taken to task for the conflicting reports regarding this attack why are they getting a free pass on their current suggestion that we need to wait for everything to be looked at,.. when from the get go they were content to go out on TV and media sources and immediatly suggest this was the result of a anti islam video? Makes zero sense. Had they wanted to wait for all the info to come in, they would have. What they did was suggest this was the result of video, when their deception was called out they changed their story. That is the main issue that won't go away and the question is does it in fact reveal deception and to what level in this admin or was it simply gross incompetance.

For anyone who doesn't see the signficance of what is going on here simply replace Obama's administration with Bush's administration and ask yourself what your stance would be. If calling for Bush to be taken to task here is what you come up with you are right, otherwise try again.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,258
9,452
136
Then don't be a fucking idiot. You don't need every member of a group in the room when you discussing strategy or determining a response, in particular if you have the leadership of the group and if the rest of the group has shit to do. The administration selected a number of people it felt best suited to determine a response. It has nothing to do with the organization overstaffed any more than your local police department not sending every cop they have to deal with any and every crime proves they are overstaffed.

Further, I'm not even willing to grant you that these weren't the right people. They very well could have been the brightest and most qualified and most experienced the US has to offer, and still fail to find an adequate solution the situation on the ground being what it was. In all of this you are assuming there was a good answer to the Benghazi attack as it was happening; you don't know that. That in mind, how about you back the fuck up and wait for evidence of actual incompetence before crying incompetence?
You want him to wait for facts?! How the hell is he going to take advantage of this political opportunity? If he has to wait for facts then it might go against his narrative and more importantly it might go against his belief and to a righty nothing is worse than going against ones gut.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Benghazi Timeline

The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


The timeline inidcates at best the current administration is grossly incompetant and at worse willfully decieved the american public for political reasons.



When the Admin began to be taken to task for the conflicting reports regarding this attack why are they getting a free pass on their current suggestion that we need to wait for everything to be looked at,.. when from the get go they were content to go out on TV and media sources and immediatly suggest this was the result of a anti islam video? Makes zero sense. Had they wanted to wait for all the info to come in, they would have. What they did was suggest this was the result of video, when their deception was called out they changed their story. That is the main issue that won't go away and the question is does it in fact reveal deception and to what level in this admin or was it simply gross incompetance.

For anyone who doesn't see the signficance of what is going on here simply replace Obama's administration with Bush's administration and ask yourself what your stance would be. If calling for Bush to be taken to task here is what you come up with you are right, otherwise try again.
Let's do that. Let's replace Obama with Bush and see what my response is. Did I, during the 9/11/01 attacks spend the months following the attack blame Bush for it? Well, I was and remain critical of the seven minute wait between "the US is under attack" and his getting up to do something about it, but on the whole no, I don't blame him for how shit went down. We call those people "truthers" and they are rightfully scorned/shamed.

Once again, for the factually impaired, the video was responsible for many other protests in the region the same day. The CIA indicated in their initial report they believed the video was responsible. Why should it surprise you that when the CIA reached this conclusion it is what Obama's administration would report to the American people?

For all of you still bitching about the administration talking about the video, what should they have done given the CIA report? Enlighten me.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Then don't be a fucking idiot. You don't need every member of a group in the room when you discussing strategy or determining a response, in particular if you have the leadership of the group and if the rest of the group has shit to do. The administration selected a number of people it felt best suited to determine a response. It has nothing to do with the organization overstaffed any more than your local police department not sending every cop they have to deal with any and every crime proves they are overstaffed.

Further, I'm not even willing to grant you that these weren't the right people. They very well could have been the brightest and most qualified and most experienced the US has to offer, and still fail to find an adequate solution the situation on the ground being what it was. In all of this you are assuming there was a good answer to the Benghazi attack as it was happening; you don't know that. That in mind, how about you back the fuck up and wait for evidence of actual incompetence before crying incompetence?
False equivalency. This is a group to formulate counterterrorism responses. A think tank, if you will. You imply that the 50 cover the whole spectrum with your cops analogy when a closer equivalent would be a parole board. That still doesn't answer the questions why and how were the 10 chosen? Were they the best, or were they simply yes men?

To your second point, I've not heard one person explain why defending the consulate with military force wasn't an option. I thought we learned that lesson in Iran.





You want him to wait for facts?! How the hell is he going to take advantage of this political opportunity? If he has to wait for facts then it might go against his narrative and more importantly it might go against his belief and to a righty nothing is worse than going against ones gut.
You're right. I do want facts. I want to know what happened. I want the truth!

Everything that keeps coming out implies that we still don't know the truth.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Let's do that. Let's replace Obama with Bush and see what my response is. Did I, during the 9/11/01 attacks spend the months following the attack blame Bush for it? Well, I was and remain critical of the seven minute wait between "the US is under attack" and his getting up to do something about it, but on the whole no, I don't blame him for how shit went down. We call those people "truthers" and they are rightfully scorned/shamed.

Once again, for the factually impaired, the video was responsible for many other protests in the region the same day. The CIA indicated in their initial report they believed the video was responsible. Why should it surprise you that when the CIA reached this conclusion it is what Obama's administration would report to the American people?

For all of you still bitching about the administration talking about the video, what should they have done given the CIA report? Enlighten me.
How about "There are contradictory reports and the situation is still evolving. We are working diligently to determine who is responsible and we will bring the full might of the United States to bear in order to deliver justice on behalf of Ambassador Stevens. We will not tolerate our missions in foreign counties coming under attack and we will defend our personnel. Leaders of the world take note: defend our emissaries or we will."?

You know, the truth. It is ok to not always have the answer. I'd rather have the truth than a lie.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
False equivalency. This is a group to formulate counterterrorism responses. A think tank, if you will. You imply that the 50 cover the whole spectrum with your cops analogy when a closer equivalent would be a parole board. That still doesn't answer the questions why and how were the 10 chosen? Were they the best, or were they simply yes men?
Ten was a number that came from Bowfinger, not a news source, keep that in mind. More to the point however, how were they chosen? My best guess, and keep in mind, I wasn't there, you would take experts in that region, the people who were available on sight at the time of the crisis, the people who had perhaps been there before, the people who have worked on similar scenarios in the past or models thereof, etc. Keep in mind that in think tanks of this size, a lot of specialization goes on. You might have some people who are dedicated to things like a chemical weapon/dirty bomb attack in the US or airline hijacking response and so forth that just weren't applicable to this situation.

To your second point, I've not heard one person explain why defending the consulate with military force wasn't an option. I thought we learned that lesson in Iran.
.
Three words, Black Hawk Down. Or, how about the fact Libya is a sovereign country and countries get pissy when you deploy overwhelming military force in them. Or, how about they didn't know what the situation was on the ground as to whether and where they could safely deploy troops.

There are a lot of reasons one might not use military force in the situation and it is entirely plausible that right now you would be gnashing your teeth over the deaths of two or three dozen Americans if we had deployed military force and found out the hard way the entire thing was a set up to try to lure in American troops into one big ambush since we found out afterwards the enemy had sent over a hundred people on this raid, including attack vehicles.

You're right. I do want facts. I want to know what happened. I want the truth!

Everything that keeps coming out implies that we still don't know the truth.
Then stop talking like you do, yes?
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
How about "There are contradictory reports and the situation is still evolving. We are working diligently to determine who is responsible and we will bring the full might of the United States to bear in order to deliver justice on behalf of Ambassador Stevens. We will not tolerate our missions in foreign counties coming under attack and we will defend our personnel. Leaders of the world take note: defend our emissaries or we will."?

You know, the truth. It is ok to not always have the answer. I'd rather have the truth than a lie.
Except that isn't the truth, the truth was the CIA preliminary report indicated it was a protest that stemmed from the video that turned violent.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Ten was a number that came from Bowfinger, not a news source, keep that in mind. More to the point however, how were they chosen? My best guess, and keep in mind, I wasn't there, you would take experts in that region, the people who were available on sight at the time of the crisis, the people who had perhaps been there before, the people who have worked on similar scenarios in the past or models thereof, etc. Keep in mind that in think tanks of this size, a lot of specialization goes on. You might have some people who are dedicated to things like a chemical weapon/dirty bomb attack in the US or airline hijacking response and so forth that just weren't applicable to this situation.



Three words, Black Hawk Down. Or, how about the fact Libya is a sovereign country and countries get pissy when you deploy overwhelming military force in them. Or, how about they didn't know what the situation was on the ground as to whether and where they could safely deploy troops.

There are a lot of reasons one might not use military force in the situation and it is entirely plausible that right now you would be gnashing your teeth over the deaths of two or three dozen Americans if we had deployed military force and found out the hard way the entire thing was a set up to try to lure in American troops into one big ambush since we found out afterwards the enemy had sent over a hundred people on this raid, including attack vehicles.

Then stop talking like you do, yes?
My answer to your two points is the same: there is a lack of transparency. If a subset of the CSG was used that focused specifically on embassy attacks, just say it. If Obama made the decision that this was a trap, another Black Hawk Down, just come out and say it.

My government works for me, or at least it's supposed to. I deserve a straight answer.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,258
9,452
136
My answer to your two points is the same: there is a lack of transparency. If a subset of the CSG was used that focused specifically on embassy attacks, just say it. If Obama made the decision that this was a trap, another Black Hawk Down, just come out and say it.

My government works for me, or at least it's supposed to. I deserve a straight answer.
Do you think you deserve that answer when national security and classified information is involved?
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
My answer to your two points is the same: there is a lack of transparency. If a subset of the CSG was used that focused specifically on embassy attacks, just say it.
Has anyone with access, namely the press, even asked how he chose who he chose? Is it reasonable to expect him to answer questions the press aren't asking right now?
If Obama made the decision that this was a trap, another Black Hawk Down, just come out and say it.
The Joint Chiefs did come out and say it. They very explicitly said they didn't know enough about the situation on the ground to commit more forces.
My government works for me, or at least it's supposed to. I deserve a straight answer.
Absolutely. I would like to know more as well, however, in the mean time pointing the finger and assigning blame and baselessly speculating aren't going to get me those answers. We have people on the ground investigating, we have congressional inquiries; both of those will I'm sure give everyone plenty to talk about regarding whose responsibility this fiasco was.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Except that isn't the truth, the truth was the CIA preliminary report indicated it was a protest that stemmed from the video that turned violent.
And it wasn't the only possibility the administration had access to. So that is the truth. And the honest response to give.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
Let's do that. Let's replace Obama with Bush and see what my response is. Did I, during the 9/11/01 attacks spend the months following the attack blame Bush for it? Well, I was and remain critical of the seven minute wait between "the US is under attack" and his getting up to do something about it, but on the whole no, I don't blame him for how shit went down. We call those people "truthers" and they are rightfully scorned/shamed.

Once again, for the factually impaired, the video was responsible for many other protests in the region the same day. The CIA indicated in their initial report they believed the video was responsible. Why should it surprise you that when the CIA reached this conclusion it is what Obama's administration would report to the American people?

For all of you still bitching about the administration talking about the video, what should they have done given the CIA report? Enlighten me.
Could that be your true colors of bias showing? Read the link I posted. It's not hard to get a few no biased neurons working properly. Don't start hollering about factually impaired from your bunker of half truths, misrepresentations of facts and Fud on this one. We all saw the response of this admin and the timeline from my link simply calls that response into question.

Bitch and main about the facts that run contrary to your stance all you want, but don't think for an instant anyone but the blind thinks there aren't any facts here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY