Obama lied about Benghazi

[Fern]

According to him the changes were pushed by CIA. Was he lying?

If current info is correct the answer would be yes.

(IIRC, in the congressional testimony the CIA, as well as others, initially claimed that they weren't responsible for the revisions etc.)

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Well, we're reading different things about the Libyan govt etc.

And you position above doesn't jibe with the Libyan President coming out so soon announcing it was a terrorist attack and disagreeing with our govt's position.

Fern

Actually, the opposite is true. Which makes the new Libyan government look less capable and in control:

1. Spontaneous demonstration of average citizens grows into an uncontrolled assault with heavy weapons?

-- or --

2. Small, dedicated terrorist cell plans and executes attack?

It is more damaging to the Libyan government to admit it can't police it's own citizens than it is to blame a terrorist group. After all, even the mighty U.S. has problems with terrorist attacks at home. The Libyan government had a vested interest in quickly spreading the word that this was a terrorist attack.

 

[Fern]

But they don't in admitting they can't control AQ in that part of Libya?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If current info is correct the answer would be yes.

(IIRC, in the congressional testimony the CIA, as well as others, initially claimed that they weren't responsible for the revisions etc.)

Fern

I think how these things are created is generally poorly understood. The NSC as a whole would generate things like this, and so there is a good bit of give and take between all our zillions of intelligence agencies. I see no particular reason to believe these new accounts over the statements of those directly involved, but maybe more evidence will come out that would change my mind.

What I have really wondered though is who gives a fuck? Faulting Obama for bad security there before the attack makes sense. Faulting him for bad Intel makes sense. Trying to turn talk show talking points into a scandal...well...means nothing. I mean say everything you think is totally true...do you really care much?

 

[Moonbeam]

Try to keep up. The election is over, Team Obama is no longer pretending that this was a spontaneous uprising because of an obscure Internet video. Now they are pretending that there was no security because of Republican cuts. You can't really be politically useful unless you keep up with the current lie.

Is that another of those things that everybody knows?

 

[werepossum]

Be aware that the story isn't quite so one-sided as some portray it. While it's true we replaced U.S. security with locals, according to sworn Congressional testimony, we'd also recently invested somewhere over $1M in upgrading security at the Benghazi outpost. If memory serves, this included fortifying the walls, adding barricades, adding bars to windows, and creating hardened defensive positions. We did try to improve Benghazi security. We just didn't do enough.

I'm aware that attempts were made to harden the building, but as anyone knows, infrastructure hardening does not good at all without people on whom you can rely. In this case, simple gasoline bombs appear to have made the building untenable, so we didn't get much for our $1 million. Everyone knows that native forces disappear when the armed mob shows up, the notable exception being Nigeria if memory serves where hired native security forces actually shot it out with the terrorists (although we of course had Marines inside the embassy.) But in general, about the most one can hope for is that one's hired native security forces don't actually join the terrorists.

I don't find either domestic political appearances or Libyan political appearances to be a sensible reason to drop American security forces, but I am willing to accept that this was a decision taken in good faith, knowing it was a gamble but assuming the benefit to our country was worth the risk. Likewise I am absolutely certain that the administration knowingly lied about the incident as domestic political damage control. I am not however outraged by the lies. Essentially I see them as no different from Romney attacking Obama on this incident, just two sides of the same political theater coin.

You're reaching and it's sad; a political statement by the Libyan President has nothing to do with factual, confirmable reality on the ground.

Considering that he was telling the truth while our President was lying, I'd say his statement had rather a lot to do with "factual, confirmable reality on the ground."

The U.S. military could have prevented one wave of the deadly attack on American personnel in Benghazi if fighter jets had been promptly deployed, a top diplomatic official who was in Benghazi during the Sept. 11 assault told congressional investigators.

The account, contained in a transcript obtained by CNN, was given by Gregory Hicks during an interview last month with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, a whistle-blower who is preparing to testify Wednesday before that committee, was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya -- after Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed that night, he became the highest-ranking diplomat on the ground.

Hicks, in his interview, argued that after the first wave of attacks on the U.S. consulate, the U.S. military could have prevented additional violence with a quickly scrambled flight -- after the first wave, terrorists would go on to launch a pre-dawn mortar assault on the CIA annex.

The Spooky gunships had been sent away earlier and could not reach the area in any practical time. Certainly our on-call fast movers could have been on the scene for the second attack, but I seriously doubt they could have safely intervened. I will concede that a laser-guided bomb could have been dropped and lased in, but that's a really big risk as an ad hoc operation within a built-up area full of civilians. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our alert ground attack planes carry 250 lb and 500 lb bombs, NOT something you want to drop in a civilian area. (And being Muslim terrorists, they might well have intentionally set up the mortar next to/on the roof of a building full of civilians. It's common practice.) Alternately, a missile such as a Hellfire or Maverick could be guided in, but I don't think our alert fast movers carry those and a Warthog or Apache would take far too long to get there.

Obviously removing American security was a very bad call with the benefit of hindsight, and most of us would have said it was a very bad call before anything happened. There should have been security, and there should have been a designated quick response force with usable transport. Air power is very nice, but requires large bases and tons of support personnel which are themselves attractive targets for a rocket or mortar attack.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, the opposite is true. Which makes the new Libyan government look less capable and in control:

1. Spontaneous demonstration of average citizens grows into an uncontrolled assault with heavy weapons?

-- or --

2. Small, dedicated terrorist cell plans and executes attack?

It is more damaging to the Libyan government to admit it can't police it's own citizens than it is to blame a terrorist group. After all, even the mighty U.S. has problems with terrorist attacks at home. The Libyan government had a vested interest in quickly spreading the word that this was a terrorist attack.

That makes sense. No one expects a Muslim country to not have terrorists, but we do expect them to not allow mobs to attack our diplomatic facilities. It was in the Libyan government's best interests to get out the word quickly, just as it was in our government's best interests to pretend as long as possible that this was an unforeseeable spontaneous uprising.

Is that another of those things that everybody knows?

Everybody with a television or radio and an interest in politics, yes.

 

[fskimospy]

Everybody with a television or radio and an interest in politics, yes.

That there might be another artifact of the right wing media bubble.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What I have really wondered though is who gives a fuck? Faulting Obama for bad security there before the attack makes sense. Faulting him for bad Intel makes sense. Trying to turn talk show talking points into a scandal...well...means nothing. I mean say everything you think is totally true...do you really care much?

First, these aren't talk show talking points. I'm primarily referring to congressional testimony and/or the latest claimed info which, if accurate, was gleaned from internal emails.

In any case, I'm not one who believes this rises to some impeachable offense/event, nor have ever claimed such.

I'll review what I think it demonstrates, and then explain why I think this issue needs more attention:

1. Bad judgement or stupidity. Reducing security when so much concern was raised by the ambassador and others at Benghazi. The investigatory panel has ruled that security there was "grossly inadequate"

2. Bad judgement or stupidity compounded. Numerous attacks and others moving out, yet we stayed and continued to decrease security. (Although to be fair some building enhancements were made.)

3. Impotence, stupidity, gross negligence, I'm not sure how to define this aspect: We knew we lacked the capability to timely respond to an attack on the embassy. To put people, including an ambassador, in this known dangerous position with full knowledge that we cannot provide support should they be attacked is, well, I don't even have a word for that kind of FU.

And bear in mind our assessments noted that even with the building enhancements our embassy (or whatever the correct term is) in Benghazi could NOT survive an sustained attack.

If we knew that, they knew that. The terrorists were there (we knew that). They have the time for surveillance. They have access to weapons. They have experience.

And so we gave AQ a big coup, PR and otherwise. Burning our embassy and killing our ambassador (not to mention some SEALS etc) is a big victory for them.

This was a fustercluck.

Now, my concern for further exploring this is what should our policy be given that we have insufficient military assets etc to protect embassies and staff. I'm not sure I believe that we lack that capability, but given the (two) large military cuts in the past 3 or 4 years maybe we don't. And if not, for reasons too obvious to mention, we have no business providing soft targets for AQ and affiliated terrorists groups to attack. And if something wasn't wrong with current policy that ambassador wouldn't have been there. So, something's broken and needs fixed.

And we should not be accepting of lying by politicians, even if it does happen too frequently.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

That there might be another artifact of the right wing media bubble.

Are you alleging that Team Obama is still pretending that this was a spontaneous uprising because of an obscure Internet video, or denying that Team Obama are now pretending that there was no security because of Republican cuts? If the latter, I'll agree that Obama and his employees are not pretending that there was no security because of Republican cuts, but his lackeys, spear catchers and water carriers on the Internet and talk shows certainly are, since that point has been raised (and debunked) about a zillion times.

 

[michal1980]

That makes sense. No one expects a Muslim country to not have terrorists, but we do expect them to not allow mobs to attack our diplomatic facilities. It was in the Libyan government's best interests to get out the word quickly, just as it was in our government's best interests to pretend as long as possible that this was an unforeseeable spontaneous uprising.

It was in Obama's and his government's best interest. not necessarily the countries.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you alleging that Team Obama is still pretending that this was a spontaneous uprising because of an obscure Internet video, or denying that Team Obama are now pretending that there was no security because of Republican cuts? If the latter, I'll agree that Obama and his employees are not pretending that there was no security because of Republican cuts, but his lackeys, spear catchers and water carriers on the Internet and talk shows certainly are, since that point has been raised (and debunked) about a zillion times.

No, I'm alleging that your description of motivations, etc. is more the product of being trapped within the ultra right wing media bubble that makes you hold so many other delusional ideas than any factual basis for your assertion.

This is nothing new, you just have a really tenuous grasp on reality when it comes to even modestly liberal politicians.

 

[werepossum]

No, I'm alleging that your description of motivations, etc. is more the product of being trapped within the ultra right wing media bubble that makes you hold so many other delusional ideas than any factual basis for your assertion.

This is nothing new, you just have a really tenuous grasp on reality when it comes to even modestly liberal politicians.

So I'm correct, but you count me as incorrect because you don't like the way I came to my conclusions. Gotcha.

 

[werepossum]

It was in Obama's and his government's best interest. not necessarily the countries.

I don't believe there is a noticeable difference in the country whether this was a calculated terrorist act or a response to an obscure Internet video.

 

[michal1980]

I don't believe there is a noticeable difference in the country whether this was a calculated terrorist act or a response to an obscure Internet video.

I think there is a huge impact initial and over time.

Just look at this thread.

Obama and his team lied about the event.

But all their supporters are saying its no big deal, and going after the GOP for continuing to go after the story.

IMHO in the mainstream, the people have moved on. And really dont care about wheater or not it was a lie.

IE Obama got away with it.

 

[WackyDan]

I don't believe there is a noticeable difference in the country whether this was a calculated terrorist act or a response to an obscure Internet video.

I think it is more like the fact the American people aren't surprised? We are somewhat familiar with terrorism now. Perhaps not familiar with the motivations, but certainly not surprised by terrorists acts...Horrified by them? Yes, but not surprised.

Which makes the administration's narrative these last several months all the more puzzling in some ways. What possible harm other than to his chances of re-election would showing integrity and telling the truth do?

I think that is the core here. Integrity. In a world of spin, they could have possibly spun these events in a way that gave the nation resolve and had minimal impact to his campaign, but they went the route of fear and decided to gloss over the issue with intentional misinformation.

Poor analogy... But most thinking conservatives weren't pissed off about Clinton getting head in a closet off the Oval Office. Good for him! They were pissed about the perjury and that is why he was impeached.

Do I think this event is impeachable? You never know. Reality is, it probably isn't. It does however potentially neuter the rest of his presidency and certainly stands to prevent Hillary from easily attaining the presidency herself.

Obama has stated time and time again on numerous policy statements about holding people accountable. It should be no different for this event either. Besides, he can always pardon them on his way out of office.

 

[Matt1970]

The Spooky gunships had been sent away earlier and could not reach the area in any practical time. Certainly our on-call fast movers could have been on the scene for the second attack, but I seriously doubt they could have safely intervened. I will concede that a laser-guided bomb could have been dropped and lased in, but that's a really big risk as an ad hoc operation within a built-up area full of civilians. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our alert ground attack planes carry 250 lb and 500 lb bombs, NOT something you want to drop in a civilian area. (And being Muslim terrorists, they might well have intentionally set up the mortar next to/on the roof of a building full of civilians. It's common practice.) Alternately, a missile such as a Hellfire or Maverick could be guided in, but I don't think our alert fast movers carry those and a Warthog or Apache would take far too long to get there.

We probably wouldn't had to fire or drop anything. Just the presence of a fighter jet in the sky would have probably scattered the attackers. The fighting went of for some 7 hours so there was time to put just about anything we wanted in the air over the site.

 

[Attic]

I think there is a huge impact initial and over time.

Just look at this thread.

Obama and his team lied about the event.

But all their supporters are saying its no big deal, and going after the GOP for continuing to go after the story.

IMHO in the mainstream, the people have moved on. And really dont care about wheater or not it was a lie.

IE Obama got away with it.

They do this because it works.... until it doesn't.

The idiots who buy into the lie, and then defend it once exposed remind me of idiotic religious fanatics. To them it's not the liars, but those who had the audacity to question the liars who deserve scorn.

 

[Attic]

We probably wouldn't had to fire or drop anything. Just the presence of a fighter jet in the sky would have probably scattered the attackers. The fighting went of for some 7 hours so there was time to put just about anything we wanted in the air over the site.

Claiming that sending fighters wouldn't have done anything presupposes knowledge of how long the attack would last, which nobody aware of the circumstances had knowledge of when these decisions were made.

It was a huge failure, no need to cover up and go so far as to send Amb. Rice out to lie if it wasn't. To be fair those involved in the cover are not alone in the depravity of the actions they engaged in. This tactic occurs at high levels and numerous administrations for business/education/politics and clearly not limited one side of politics. Truth demands too much power/wealth be taken away if one who has either or both makes the wrong mistake.

Those involved in the cover have to be held accountable for the actions taken, they don't have to own up, but they need to be held accountable. When one side can do no wrong no matter what,.. then we are REALLY in trouble. Some folks skip willingly right into the blender, but fortunately they haven't hit critical mass.

 

[berzerker60]

Everyone remember Solyndra? How a bad decision in an isolated case got blown up as if it was Teapot Dome, but it was all there was to tar Obama so it got broadcast on Fox News (and after the first few weeks, only there) over and over and over? Then Fast and Furious, another serious but isolated failure. Iran-Contra it was not. Let's not even start on birtherism.

No one cares about this story because the right wing media has cried wolf so many times that it's hard to take their "scandal" du jour seriously. They've been bleating about Benghazi to score political points since literally the day it happened, when Romney had that absurd press conference making wild accusations before Obama even had a chance to speak. If there's something actually wrong there, it'll come out in time, but for now it's just the same Fox News echo chamber pumping anger into each other's veins, so I safely ignore it. There's nothing fanatical or religious about it. Not everyone exists in the same Glenn Beck / infowars / Alex Jones / Fox News conspiracy theory echo chamber you do, and Benghazi as anything but a sad but not uncommon event still rings pretty false to most of us.

 

[Steeplerot]

When ol Big Dog is wandering the halls of the White House in his bathrobe in 2016 I will laugh and remember all these crackpot stories you all tell.

 

[IGBT]

"The question is, where's the accountability for lying to the American people?" Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CNN News. "The American people were lied to."

Three whistle-blowers are set to testify shortly before noon to the oversight committee Issa chairs.

 

[nextJin]

I have not really chimed in here (all the threads related to this) but "in my opinion” there was gross negligence prior to the events and afterwards a small group of people high up played political games with the story. I am not saying it came from the highest office in the land but almost certainly someone was involved with changing the story and at the very least playing with the narrative of the 2012 elections. The administration did not want another Carter fiasco right before an election.

There are just too many factors that say anything otherwise. I do not blame AMB Rice at all; she was the GEN Powell pre-Iraq. Congress needs to have the power to subpoena folks and that will likely never happen.

I do not think this story is just conservatives screaming terrorists and a cover up. There are legitimate issues with this, much more so than Solendra or Fast and Furious.

 

[boomerang]

I have not really chimed in here (all the threads related to this) but "in my opinion” there was gross negligence prior to the events and afterwards a small group of people high up played political games with the story. I am not saying it came from the highest office in the land but almost certainly someone was involved with changing the story and at the very least playing with the narrative of the 2012 elections. The administration did not want another Carter fiasco right before an election.

There are just too many factors that say anything otherwise. I do not blame AMB Rice at all; she was the GEN Powell pre-Iraq. Congress needs to have the power to subpoena folks and that will likely never happen.

I do not think this story is just conservatives screaming terrorists and a cover up. There are legitimate issues with this, much more so than Solendra or Fast and Furious.

It did come from the highest office in the land. He's the top dog and he sets the policies his underlings must abide by. His directives were followed. Is he going to take the fall? Of course not. There are numerous folks that can fall on the sword for him but the question is will the individual who should, do so? That person is Hillary Clinton.

I never understood why she took the job in the first place. It was little more than keep your friends close and your enemies closer on the part of Obama. The Clinton clan made a tactical mistake. It reminds of the fable of the frog and the scorpion.

I have much more I want to say but I am out of time this AM.

 

[HomerJS]

With all this hang wringing about Bengahzi exactly when did Republicans hold hearings about how we got into Iraq? Since those actions led to American deaths BEFORE the fact.