Obama lied about Benghazi

[ivwshane]

Why not? Nowhere do we have a consensus on what took place that night, in Benghazi (although this seems to be the most clear of everything) or here within the intelligence community or the White House. At least we should be getting a narrative that everyone can agree on.

So again, why not investigate and try to prevent something like this from happening again rather than cover it up and hope it doesn't happen again.

It was already investigated months ago, did you read the ARB report?

 

[Bowfinger]

It was already investigated months ago, did you read the ARB report?

I don't believe they addressed the issue of Stevens allegedly rejecting two offers of military assistance from General Ham. I would like to get the full story behind that, and understand why Stevens might have turned away critical resources that might have saved his life (if true).

 

[ivwshane]

I don't believe they addressed the issue of Stevens allegedly rejecting two offers of military assistance from General Ham. I would like to get the full story behind that, and understand why Stevens might have turned away critical resources that might have saved his life (if true).

It did address it, it just didn't specifically address it.

 

[xBiffx]

It was already investigated months ago, did you read the ARB report?

We got bits and pieces from that report. Exactly what I said needed to be cleared up. We need a complete version of what happened, everywhere, in regards to the events that night.

This is the reason for further investigation, which was the point of my last post.

 

[bshole]

This is just the birther thing all over again, no matter what happens they will not stop gnawing on this bone. I see no reason to spend another dime of taxpayer funds to allow them to do so. Force them to use their re-election warchests to fund it.

 

[xBiffx]

This is just the birther thing all over again, no matter what happens they will not stop gnawing on this bone. I see no reason to spend another dime of taxpayer funds to allow them to do so. Force them to use their re-election warchests to fund it.

Good one. So anyone who wants to prevent this tragedy from happening again, wants to gain any and all information possible to not let it happen again is equivalent to an insane fringe group stuck on an already debunked idea. I didn't think anyone had issues spending taxpayers money to make sure those Americans that serve us oversees are as protected and supported as much as possible. Guess I was wrong, they're just loony. :|

 

[bshole]

xBiffx,

The purpose of any further investigation will only be attempts at smearing Clinton/Obama and bettering the election chances of Republicans.

Here's an idea, if you are worried about this kind of thing, pull our ambassadors out of all Middle East countries that were part of the Muslim spring. No investigation needed, just common sense. I have no idea why we have ambassadors in the Middle East. We are nearly universally despised over there. Apparently our ambassadors are accomplishing absolutely nothing, so why bother?

 

[palehorse]

Honest question: Why SHOULDN'T Hillary Clinton be held accountable for the lack of sufficient security forces in Libya? Or, from a different perspective, for not pulling out our people when the frequent threats and insufficient security became known?

 

[Incorruptible]

Honest question: Why SHOULDN'T Hillary Clinton be held accountable for the lack of sufficient security forces in Libya? Or, from a different perspective, for not pulling out our people when the frequent threats and insufficient security became known?

She is responsible but these moron liberals will defend her. Becuase it's their side it's alright but if this happened under bush they would be outraged.

 

[xBiffx]

Here's an idea, if you are worried about this kind of thing, pull our ambassadors out of all Middle East countries that were part of the Muslim spring. No investigation needed, just common sense. I have no idea why we have ambassadors in the Middle East. We are nearly universally despised over there. Apparently our ambassadors are accomplishing absolutely nothing, so why bother?

All good points/questions. Too bad we can't answer them because some people want to conserve tax payer money.

 

[Attic]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/20/exclusive-hillary-s-benghazi-scapegoat-speaks-out.html

“There are people who seem to have responsibility who have yet to be held accountable.”

...
Eight months after the attack, Congressional investigators and outside groups are still pressing the State Department to explain how the ARB came to the conclusion that four mid-level officials were the only ones with responsibility for the failures that led up to the attack.

First portion of quoted from the guy who was fired following the ARB (BSB) report.

Given no leaders have emerged to actually be held accountable, it gives some indication of the environment that led to the poor choices leading to and following the Benghazi attack. An awful lot of folks are worried about their image first and everything else second if at all.

 

[Fern]

I'm certainly not asserting the article is accurate, nor do I know why Stevens would turn down such an offer (if true). For now I see this as merely an interesting twist in the story. It should be investigated along with the other Benghazi issues.

I can't imagine how Stevens could even authorize such a request from the military. Ambassadors don't set policy or overrule the Sec of State etc. He was in no position to accept or deny.

H3ll, if he had that kind of power his requests to the State Dept for more security would have been followed.

This whole "he turned down the military" strikes me as diversionary BS.

Fern

 

[Fern]

xBiffx,

The purpose of any further investigation will only be attempts at smearing Clinton/Obama and bettering the election chances of Republicans.

Here's an idea, if you are worried about this kind of thing, pull our ambassadors out of all Middle East countries that were part of the Muslim spring. No investigation needed, just common sense. I have no idea why we have ambassadors in the Middle East. We are nearly universally despised over there. Apparently our ambassadors are accomplishing absolutely nothing, so why bother?

Our embassies exist for reasons far beyond conducting foreign policy. Most ambassadors have little responsibility in that area anyway. That's why Hillary and Obama communicate with the upper levels of foreign govts.

Our embassies are there for a number of reasons including:

1. Helping US citizens abroad in those countries, whether they are living/working there or just tourists.

2. Helping US businesses sell products to the foreign country.

3. Accept and process tourist visa for the local populations.

However, I agree with you to an extent. While there are a number of good reasons for embassies abroad (although I question the one in Benghazi, what frickin American citizens are there?) if you can't keep your people safe they shouldn't be there.

Fern

 

[KMFJD]

 

[xBiffx]

Not sure where this one is coming from. I don't know anyone who doesn't want the perpetrators of this event hunted down and exterminated. Pretty sure most aren't going to those lengths in regards to Obama.

But then again, you probably watch news stations that make more money if more people tune in. This message probably sells more.

 

[TerryMathews]

CBS this morning just ran a quick story that Petraeus tried to keep details "that were favorable to the CIA" in the talking points and that caused infighting and led to intense editing.

Can anyone find more on this?

 

[werepossum]

Our embassies exist for reasons far beyond conducting foreign policy. Most ambassadors have little responsibility in that area anyway. That's why Hillary and Obama communicate with the upper levels of foreign govts.

Our embassies are there for a number of reasons including:

1. Helping US citizens abroad in those countries, whether they are living/working there or just tourists.

2. Helping US businesses sell products to the foreign country.

3. Accept and process tourist visa for the local populations.

However, I agree with you to an extent. While there are a number of good reasons for embassies abroad (although I question the one in Benghazi, what frickin American citizens are there?) if you can't keep your people safe they shouldn't be there.

Fern

This was a diplomatic mission, in spite of the fact that it housed a full US ambassador. I think it was there because that's where the rebels (or perhaps the least anti-American of the rebel factions) was located and we were trying to curry favor as well as strengthen the most pro-American (or at least, the least anti-American) of the rebel factions. That's a reasonable goal that benefits us all, even if poorly implemented.

I agree that sticking these people there with no security, when other nations had pulled out because of the degenerating security situation and in the face of specific credible threats, was a horrible decision, I just don't think it is a scandal. I think it was a honest decision by State and/or Obama to take a risk in order to curry favor and present the image that Libya was safe under the rebels. If I thought this was for domestic politics I would be outraged, but I don't think anyone in America would be swayed against Obama if our diplomatic mission was protected by a Marine squad or a SF heavy team. Only Libyan politics would be affected. I imagine that State was hoping that if/when our embassy was attacked it would be Libyans than Americans killing Libyans. Of course, all of us know that when the radical Muslims attack the less radical Muslims simply get out of their way, but hope springs eternal in the pin-striped breast.

The cover-up was for domestic politics, but probably more so for good old-fashioned interdepartmental turf war ass covering. I'd still consider it a scandal had they made up something from whole cloth, but it seems to me that Obama simply picked the most politically appealing narrative from those possible, even knowing it wasn't true, to blunt the political impact. To me that's meh; politicians are always going to look for the most politically useful explanation, not the most truthful explanation. I voted for Romney (and have before), but I don't think his behavior after the incident was materially different.