• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Benghazi - the gift that keeps on giving

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Abraxas said:
Where there is this much smoke, there's bound to be a Republican trying to blow it up my ass.
Click to expand...

Okay, I actually LOLed at that.

This really is what today's "gotcha politics" is all about: make a big royal fuss about something whether there is actually anything valid there or not, then try to say that there must be something valid because there's a royal fuss.

It would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic.
 
Abraxas said:
Where there is this much smoke, there's bound to be a Republican trying to blow it up my ass.

Most of the Republican's in this thread, maybe even all of them, seem to be under the mistaken impression that the reports are contradictory. It must be a terrorist attack or it must stem from the video. It must be Obama either blocking action or the military defying him. So on and so on. The fact is nothing in this is contradictory. A lot of people have said we don't know what happened here at least, I don't think that is true. A pretty clear picture is emerging and for political reasons the Republicans are trying to muddy it.

The embassy in Cairo was under protest due to the video, the embassy in Cairo not being particularly far away. Likewise, other protests that day centered around the video. This much is not in dispute. Per the CIA, it is still unclear how much of a roll the video played in it. Contrary to the continual pattern of rightard noise on the issue, saying things like the references to the video are lies or a coverup, the primary intelligence apparatus of the US, is unclear whether the terrorist attack was planned and carried out in response to the video, if the video was used as a cover for preplanned terrorist attacks, or if the video and terrorist attacks were coincidental. This isn't coming from Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher, this is coming from the CIA. That the right chooses to ignore this is unsurprising, certainly, but is a clear indicator they are more interested in vilifying Obama than they are getting to the truth of the matter.

Likewise on the sending rescue bit. First and foremost, the report is rescue was dispatched but was too late to do any good. Second, for all those talking about why didn't we deploy troops, first, keep in mind that per the reports the Joint Chiefs unanimously rejected it. Maybe they had concerns about invading a sovereign nation, maybe they had concerns about it going Black Hawk Down, maybe they were concerned about a high potential for civilian casualties, but whatever their reasons, the individuals who the military has recognized as the most competent and skilled decision makers decided without a single dissenter that doing what you are describing was the wrong move. Now, maybe they made a mistake, maybe not, but those of you who aren't generals, who haven't had to make the call to put people in harm's way or deal with the possible fallout of launching a very high profile military strike inside a nation we are attempting to make our allies aren't in any position to bloviate about how awesome you would have been for making a different call. You weren't there, you didn't know what they knew.

Further, they deciding not to act is fully compatible with Obama telling them to do what they could. See, Obama can delegate authority and he can both tell them to do what they can and have them determine there is nothing they can do.

This whole thing has been a disgusting exercise in those who wish find something to be critical of Obama doing so through the celebration of the tragic deaths of their countrymen. You won't be honest with this boar but you may as well be honest with yourselves; you don't give a damn what actually happened, you just are glad you found something you could spin up into a fresh attack on Obama after the last half dozen or so scandals you were sure were going to ruin Obama failed to go anywhere.

There is a lot of smoke, but it has far more to do with deliberate attempts by the right to blind people than any fire.
Click to expand...
Bravo! This, exactly. Very well said.
 
Well said, and just not accurate.
This isn't going to be solved in an internet forum, or will it be solved before the election. This is going to take Congressional hearings and a probable impeachment to get the truth. We have time, no hurry.
 
Abraxas said:
Where there is this much smoke, there's bound to be a Republican trying to blow it up my ass.

Most of the Republican's in this thread, maybe even all of them, seem to be under the mistaken impression that the reports are contradictory. It must be a terrorist attack or it must stem from the video. It must be Obama either blocking action or the military defying him. So on and so on. The fact is nothing in this is contradictory. A lot of people have said we don't know what happened here at least, I don't think that is true. A pretty clear picture is emerging and for political reasons the Republicans are trying to muddy it.

The embassy in Cairo was under protest due to the video, the embassy in Cairo not being particularly far away. Likewise, other protests that day centered around the video. This much is not in dispute. Per the CIA, it is still unclear how much of a roll the video played in it. Contrary to the continual pattern of rightard noise on the issue, saying things like the references to the video are lies or a coverup, the primary intelligence apparatus of the US, is unclear whether the terrorist attack was planned and carried out in response to the video, if the video was used as a cover for preplanned terrorist attacks, or if the video and terrorist attacks were coincidental. This isn't coming from Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher, this is coming from the CIA. That the right chooses to ignore this is unsurprising, certainly, but is a clear indicator they are more interested in vilifying Obama than they are getting to the truth of the matter.

Likewise on the sending rescue bit. First and foremost, the report is rescue was dispatched but was too late to do any good. Second, for all those talking about why didn't we deploy troops, first, keep in mind that per the reports the Joint Chiefs unanimously rejected it. Maybe they had concerns about invading a sovereign nation, maybe they had concerns about it going Black Hawk Down, maybe they were concerned about a high potential for civilian casualties, but whatever their reasons, the individuals who the military has recognized as the most competent and skilled decision makers decided without a single dissenter that doing what you are describing was the wrong move. Now, maybe they made a mistake, maybe not, but those of you who aren't generals, who haven't had to make the call to put people in harm's way or deal with the possible fallout of launching a very high profile military strike inside a nation we are attempting to make our allies aren't in any position to bloviate about how awesome you would have been for making a different call. You weren't there, you didn't know what they knew.

Further, they deciding not to act is fully compatible with Obama telling them to do what they could. See, Obama can delegate authority and he can both tell them to do what they can and have them determine there is nothing they can do.

This whole thing has been a disgusting exercise in those who wish find something to be critical of Obama doing so through the celebration of the tragic deaths of their countrymen. You won't be honest with this boar but you may as well be honest with yourselves; you don't give a damn what actually happened, you just are glad you found something you could spin up into a fresh attack on Obama after the last half dozen or so scandals you were sure were going to ruin Obama failed to go anywhere.

There is a lot of smoke, but it has far more to do with deliberate attempts by the right to blind people than any fire.
Click to expand...

This^ x2

\reminds me of the build up of going into Iraq after 911
 
Abraxas said:
Further, they deciding not to act is fully compatible with Obama telling them to do what they could. See, Obama can delegate authority and he can both tell them to do what they can and have them determine there is nothing they can do.
Click to expand...
You really think that there were that many unknowns on the ground that they were ready to leave 30+ Americans to die, including a fucking ambassador? This is such bullshit. They had real time video of what was going on plus the communication with the consulate and the CIA assets in the area.

So what you'd have us believe is that Obama says "take all steps necessary to secure our people" then Panetta and the Joints chiefs say we can't do anything because we don't know what we are getting into?
This whole thing has been a disgusting exercise in those who wish find something to be critical of Obama doing so through the celebration of the tragic deaths of their countrymen.
Click to expand...
You'd have us believe an absurd fiction where the military decides that it can't "take all steps necessary" to save an ambassador.
You won't be honest with this boar but you may as well be honest with yourselves; you don't give a damn what actually happened, you just are glad you found something you could spin up into a fresh attack on Obama after the last half dozen or so scandals you were sure were going to ruin Obama failed to go anywhere.
Click to expand...
Do you give a shit about those who died? I do and it pisses me off that they were left out to dry.
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
I believe i'm hard for Obama.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you Moosie.

Another story out.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/31/tp-you-have-the-blood-of-an-american-hero-on-your/

Until last week, the White House had taken a moderate hit over the fact that for two weeks after it happened, officials had fostered the impression that the four Americans were killed Sept. 11 in a spontaneous protest triggered by a blasphemous anti-Islam video posted on YouTube – not by a coordinated terrorist attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11. But administration officials pushed back by saying the “fog of war” had left them uncertain about events, and that when White House press secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had cited the video, they were only repeating the best available information they had. The president’s repeated comments conveyed the impression that he wasn’t aware of the attacks as they were unfolding, saying only that the next day, he ordered increased security for embassies in the area.

But after a torrent of leaks of official emails and communiqués – likely coming from CIA officials who refuse to participate in a cover-up and/or who won’t accept the role of scapegoat – the “fog of war” narrative looks like damage control: a determined attempt to keep the facts from the public until after the Nov. 6 election. After the leaks, the president suddenly changed his story to say he was aware of the attacks as they unfolded and had quickly issued an order to “make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.”

There was no “fog.” There was no spontaneous uprising. Thanks to a drone and other surveillance technology, the White House’s national security team knew in real time that the U.S. consulate and a “safe house” a mile away in Benghazi were under coordinated attack by a well-armed group, not from a protest that unexpectedly escalated. Over a seven-hour span on Sept. 11, the besieged Americans made at least two urgent requests for help; the U.S. military has considerable assets in the area that could have been deployed to Benghazi.

Who told the besieged Americans they were out of luck?......................
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buckshot24 said:
You really think that there were that many unknowns on the ground that they were ready to leave 30+ Americans to die, including a fucking ambassador? This is such bullshit. They had real time video of what was going on plus the communication with the consulate and the CIA assets in the area.
Click to expand...
What I believe doesn't matter, which was the entire point of that section of my post. I don't have the experience or the skill at managing military assets that the Joint Chiefs do and so my second guessing them amounts to a fart in the wind.

If the Joint Chiefs were in the room with you right now, what would you say to them? Would you say, "You guys fucked up. You should have done X, Y, Z to save them and I know, because I've put in over four hundred hours on Modern Warfare II for Xbox. Sure, I'm just some random dumbfuck on the internet, but I'm so amazing that despite never having served in a military command position more advanced than squad captain of my laser tag league I can safely say my judgement on this is much superior to your decades of training, research, and experience."?

No, of course not, because despite how you play it here and now, you aren't that fucking stupid. You know as well as I do that at the time the call was made, the best military minds in the US made the call they thought was the right one and it is absolutely ludicrous to think they would throw away the life of an American ambassador if they thought they could do something. Your entire premise boils down to either supreme incompetence at the highest levels of the US military or some yet to be defined reason for deliberately allowing a US ambassador to be killed, neither of which is reasonable.

I'm not going to tell you the right call was made, I'm not going to tell you there wasn't a way they could have saved everyone if everything went exactly right. What I will tell you is the most reasonable interpretation is the military leadership of the US made the call with their best judgement and determined for whatever reason that not going in was the least bad option available to them.

If you want to bitch and moan about how horrible it was that the Ambassador was killed and blame it on Obama or the Joint Chiefs, nobody here is going to stop you. But don't kid yourself, everyone here talking about how they would have done it differently, even with the benefits of hindsight, you included, are talking out your collective asses.
So what you'd have us believe is that Obama says "take all steps necessary to secure our people" then Panetta and the Joints chiefs say we can't do anything because we don't know what we are getting into?

You'd have us believe an absurd fiction where the military decides that it can't "take all steps necessary" to save an ambassador.
Click to expand...
When the Joint Chiefs say there wasn't a better option than to trust the security already in place due to the instability of the situation before committing more American lives to a dangerous situation, I am inclined to take their word for it more than Random Internet Asshole #264085.
Do you give a shit about those who died? I do and it pisses me off that they were left out to dry.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't believe you. If you truly gave a shit you would stop giving soap box speeches from their dead bodies and let the inquiries already open in the matter find the facts before jumping to conclusions that just so happen to fit your preconceived political biases. If you care so much, stop playing politics with the dead; it's disgraceful.

The reason I'm not acting like you is because, in fact, I do care. That's why I'm willing to let the system run its course and reach well supported conclusions that allow us to take away the proper lessons from the situation instead of assuming the fact finding will support what I already believe, and take steps to correct any flaws in our security and decision making processes for situations like these instead of immediately assuming someone is to blame and pointing the finger. If you really care, stop politicizing their deaths.
 
Sandy has more or less obliterated Benghazi from the media spotlight until after the election. Good news for Obama.
 
Abraxas said:
Where there is this much smoke, there's bound to be a Republican trying to blow it up my ass.

Most of the Republican's in this thread, maybe even all of them, seem to be under the mistaken impression that the reports are contradictory. It must be a terrorist attack or it must stem from the video. It must be Obama either blocking action or the military defying him. So on and so on. The fact is nothing in this is contradictory. A lot of people have said we don't know what happened here at least, I don't think that is true. A pretty clear picture is emerging and for political reasons the Republicans are trying to muddy it.

The embassy in Cairo was under protest due to the video, the embassy in Cairo not being particularly far away. Likewise, other protests that day centered around the video. This much is not in dispute. Per the CIA, it is still unclear how much of a roll the video played in it. Contrary to the continual pattern of rightard noise on the issue, saying things like the references to the video are lies or a coverup, the primary intelligence apparatus of the US, is unclear whether the terrorist attack was planned and carried out in response to the video, if the video was used as a cover for preplanned terrorist attacks, or if the video and terrorist attacks were coincidental. This isn't coming from Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher, this is coming from the CIA. That the right chooses to ignore this is unsurprising, certainly, but is a clear indicator they are more interested in vilifying Obama than they are getting to the truth of the matter.

Likewise on the sending rescue bit. First and foremost, the report is rescue was dispatched but was too late to do any good. Second, for all those talking about why didn't we deploy troops, first, keep in mind that per the reports the Joint Chiefs unanimously rejected it. Maybe they had concerns about invading a sovereign nation, maybe they had concerns about it going Black Hawk Down, maybe they were concerned about a high potential for civilian casualties, but whatever their reasons, the individuals who the military has recognized as the most competent and skilled decision makers decided without a single dissenter that doing what you are describing was the wrong move. Now, maybe they made a mistake, maybe not, but those of you who aren't generals, who haven't had to make the call to put people in harm's way or deal with the possible fallout of launching a very high profile military strike inside a nation we are attempting to make our allies aren't in any position to bloviate about how awesome you would have been for making a different call. You weren't there, you didn't know what they knew.

Further, they deciding not to act is fully compatible with Obama telling them to do what they could. See, Obama can delegate authority and he can both tell them to do what they can and have them determine there is nothing they can do.

This whole thing has been a disgusting exercise in those who wish find something to be critical of Obama doing so through the celebration of the tragic deaths of their countrymen. You won't be honest with this boar but you may as well be honest with yourselves; you don't give a damn what actually happened, you just are glad you found something you could spin up into a fresh attack on Obama after the last half dozen or so scandals you were sure were going to ruin Obama failed to go anywhere.

There is a lot of smoke, but it has far more to do with deliberate attempts by the right to blind people than any fire.
Click to expand...

I love you man.
 
Abraxas said:
Where there is this much smoke, there's bound to be a Republican trying to blow it up my ass. <snip>
Click to expand...
Please share your thoughts on the administration deliberately ignoring the requests for more security for our embassy in the lead up to the attack.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the concerns Ambassador Stevens himself expressed on the very morning of day of the attack in which he lost his life. If you would like help finding this information, please let me know and I will direct you to it.
 
monovillage said:
Fixed it for you Moosie.

Another story out.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct/31/tp-you-have-the-blood-of-an-american-hero-on-your/
Click to expand...
Psst. That's not a story. It's an op-ed. By a blatantly right-wing editorial board. (Every one of their endorsements, at least for national office, is Republican. I didn't check the rest.) There is no new information in that editorial. It's just the usual (faux-)outraged spin by the O'Bashers.

That you consistently can't tell the difference between news and opinion is a major reason your view of the world is so shamelessly one-sided. You seek only that which reinforces your biases, then pat yourself on the back for being so smart. You're Spidey with a smidgen less crazy.
 
boomerang said:
Please share your thoughts on the administration deliberately ignoring the requests for more security for our embassy in the lead up to the attack. ...
Click to expand...
You know that wasn't an embassy in Benghazi, right? You know they'd already spent a small fortune upgrading security at and reinforcing that consulate, right? You know that 16-man team the O'Bashers keep harping on was stationed in Triopli, not Benghazi, right?
 
Bowfinger said:
You know that wasn't an embassy in Benghazi, right? You know they'd already spent a small fortune upgrading security at and reinforcing that consulate, right? You know that 16-man team the O'Bashers keep harping on was stationed in Triopli, not Benghazi, right?
Click to expand...
Please excuse me, I used the word 'embassy' when I should have used the word 'consulate'. I forget sometimes, but not for long of course, that semantics are very important to the left.
 
boomerang said:
Please excuse me, I used the word 'embassy' when I should have used the word 'consulate'. I forget sometimes, but not for long of course, that semantics are very important to the left.
Click to expand...
And the rest you'll just ignore because it undermines your outrage. (By the way, what you call "semantics" more honest people call "accurate information.")

Edit: In fairness, you probably didn't know the other facts I mentioned, since Fox has likely ignored them. Inconvenient for their propaganda. Nonetheless, they are documented in the written testimony presented to Congress, as well as many other inconvenient details Fox hasn't fed to its flock.
 
Last edited:
Bowfinger said:
And the rest you'll just ignore because it undermines your outrage. (By the way, what you call "semantics" more honest people call "accurate information.")

Edit: In fairness, you probably didn't know the other facts I mentioned, since Fox has likely ignored them. Inconvenient for their propaganda. Nonetheless, they are documented in the written testimony presented to Congress, as well as many other inconvenient details Fox hasn't fed to its flock.
Click to expand...
No, no, no no. The other facts are not germane to the request I made to Abraxas. That's why I didn't address them.

Additionally, your facts are related to the events as they were happening during the course of the attack. The facts I'm referring to are prior to the attack. An emergency meeting held one month prior and a cable sent by the Ambassador the morning of the attack. I was asking Abraxas to respond to that information.

You are aware of those facts, aren't you? You don't get your news solely from left wing news sites that cherry pick what Obamabots want to hear I hope.

Fun game, huh?
 
boomerang said:
No, no, no no. The other facts are not germane to the request I made to Abraxas. That's why I didn't address them.

Additionally, your facts are related to the events as they were happening during the course of the attack. The facts I'm referring to are prior to the attack. An emergency meeting held one month prior and a cable sent by the Ambassador the morning of the attack. I was asking Abraxas to respond to that information.

You are aware of those facts, aren't you? You don't get your news solely from left wing news sites that cherry pick what Obamabots want to hear I hope.

Fun game, huh?
Click to expand...
I was responding directly to your assertion that, "administration deliberately ignoring the requests for more security for our embassy in the lead up to the attack." Those are your exact words, and they're purely partisan elephant dung, as I explained. You are also mistaken, to put it politely, when you claim that my comments were tied to the course of the attack. Given that you are the asshat who chose to celebrate the deaths of these four Americans by calling it "the gift that keeps on giving," however, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you're too craven and too cowardly to address these inconvenient facts, instead duhverting with irrelevant tripe.

And by the way, since you seem to have missed this too, my information came directly from the sworn, written testimony given to Congress, NOT from any media site. I rarely visit left wing news sites, and even then it's almost exclusively because somebody else linked an article. You're the one who enjoys being brainwashed, not me.
 
Abraxas said:
If the Joint Chiefs were in the room with you right now, what would you say to them? Would you say, "You guys fucked up. You should have done X, Y, Z to save them and I know, because I've put in over four hundred hours on Modern Warfare II for Xbox. Sure, I'm just some random dumbfuck on the internet, but I'm so amazing that despite never having served in a military command position more advanced than squad captain of my laser tag league I can safely say my judgement on this is much superior to your decades of training, research, and experience."?
Click to expand...
I'd ask them what really happened because what Panetta is saying they said isn't believable. The president says "do whatever it takes to secure our personnel" and the military says "we can't do shit"? The president would be the one to worry about diplomacy and if he said do whatever it takes then the military would do whatever it took. They didn't. Apparently they had real time video of the situation and yet they didn't know what was going on, in fact there was so much uncertainty that they left a consulate and an ambassador burn when the president gave them the go ahead. Bullshit.
Frankly, I don't believe you. If you truly gave a shit you would stop giving soap box speeches from their dead bodies and let the inquiries already open in the matter find the facts before jumping to conclusions that just so happen to fit your preconceived political biases. If you care so much, stop playing politics with the dead; it's disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Believe what you want.
The reason I'm not acting like you is because, in fact, I do care. That's why I'm willing to let the system run its course and reach well supported conclusions that allow us to take away the proper lessons from the situation instead of assuming the fact finding will support what I already believe, and take steps to correct any flaws in our security and decision making processes for situations like these instead of immediately assuming someone is to blame and pointing the finger. If you really care, stop politicizing their deaths.
Click to expand...
Ok, conservatives are politicizing their deaths by demanding answers and liberals aren't by buying all the conflicting stories coming out about this without question. I'm perfectly willing to let investigations go forward but at the same time it pisses me off that these people were left out to dry before, during and after this attack.
 
monovillage said:
Fox is not "the media", it's Fox. "The media" consists of multiple outlets, but then you know this and you're just lying..........again.
Click to expand...

In his defense, Fox is only part of the media when it suits an agenda. Otherwise they are disregarded. All libs do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top