I don’t get exactly what the controversy is regarding the attack on the consolate in Libya? What exactly is the administration being accused of?
Thanks,
Rob
Lots of spurious claims of cover-ups and refusing to send help and not having all the information instantly.
It really comes down to Governing While Democrat.
Not being Republican, as far as I can tell.
The claims are that various people knew exactly what was happening and lied about it, or various people didn’t know what was going on and shouldn’t have been talking, or various people didn’t know what was going on and should have or any number of variations on that theme.
Oh yeah, and the ‘shoulda coulda woulda done it better and saved them’ theme. Which is another pile of misconstrual* and deliberate misstatement.
*Yes, I did just make that up, but I think I like it.
Sums up pretty well:
2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia
In other words,
[ul]
[li]What did the Administration really know before, during and after the attack?[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Why are the various Administration public statements during and after the attack so different from each other?[/li][/ul]
Opponents of the current Administration are attempting to make political hay with their own smoke and mirrors while claiming the Administration implemented their own smoke and mirrors (a coverup) as to what really happened and why were we not prepared to prevent it from happening.
Since this is essentially political, let’s move it over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
My car pool buddy and I have been chuckling away listening to right-wing American media’s reaction to this. (Using a smart phone radio app piped to the car’s speakers.)
You would think it’s fucking Watergate. Sean Hannity; what a comedian.
No one died in Watergate.
Sorry. I re-read my post and instantly can see the inappropriateness of it. Of course I’m very sorry for the loss of life.
Damn, I am good. 
I’ve got a guy on Facebook trying to convince me Obama has committed a crime.
For the life of me I cannot understand what criminal offense he is alleging took place.
No, it was just an attempt to subvert the Democratic process which millions of brave Americans have died to protect. How dare you minimize their sacrifice?
It’s amazing how easy it is to manufacture phony outrage.
Idk about the political bluster coming from the Republican side, but personally I would like to know why the diplomats were killed. I’ve heard the CIA was running guns to Syria. I’d like to know who we have aligned ourselves with in Libya. To me it seems like we are aligned with a terror group while simultaneously being at war with the same or associated terror groups. Our participation in the NATO attack on Libya was a mistake. I would like history to reflect it as such.
A couple additional things that I’ve heard used to artificially confuse an already confusing incident:
-
claims that Obama denied additional security when it was requested (they didn’t actually make such a request in Benghazi), and
-
claims that we may have had an AC130 overhead which did not assist in repelling attackers on Obama’s orders (to the best of my knowledge we had a C130 which was armed with whatever the crew was carrying and was not a gunship capable of precision ground strikes
I’ve heard we may have had a drone in the air too, but even if true, firing a missile at the compound would’ve done nothing to save the Americans, the Libyans defending the compound, or any brave Libyan civilians in the area who later rescued the ambassador from a burning building and took him to the hospital.
The best summary of what actually happened was this transcript of a conference call with state department officials: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm
Just more rhetoric from the GOP trying to politicize everything under Obama’s administration.
The only thing the GOP managed to do was compromised US National Security efforts in Libya.
BTW, what is it with Republicans always revealing US National Security secrets to the public? First it was Cheney revealing the Valeria Plame was a US spy and now Issa, revealing the names of over 22 CIA operatives in Benghazi and the Libyan civilians who were working with them. :smack:
GOD.
this. again.
the republican claim was that Al Qaeda had been planning this attack for some time to hit on 9/11. the uproar was because the Obi Admin associated the attack as being part of the protests over the anti-islamic movie, which was being protested all over the middle east at the time.
GOP claims thas was an out and out lie, and then laundry-listed a ton of other things like: Obama denied more security, Obama denied help during the attack, CIA was told to stand down, US has attack drones in the air but refused to engage, US has Spookys and fighters in the area but refused to help, and that we knew previous to the attack that Al Qaeda was going to do this yet did nothing.
what seems to actually be the case is—
- dudes who attacked said it was, in fact, NOT planned, was about the movie.
- they have loose–and few–ties to Al Qaeda, but it was not a sanctioned or planned or orchestrated or sponsored attack. they said they have no on-going “jihad” with america and that they were just really upset about the movie thing.
- most of what the administration said and did was fairly spot on
- CIA was on the scene in 25 minutes to get the first wave of people out
- a visual drone was on the scene in around an hour, but mostly the deal was done
- military was on the scene in some 15 hours due to logistics.
- this logistical delay means no, there were no fighters nor Spookys around, nor armed drones nor any of the on-the-fly solutions the GOP is arm-chair quarter-backing.
-
it’s weird were were in Benghazi
and finally, - this has never been more than a leverage point for GOP-outrage manufacturing.
“OH MY GOD PETRAEUS! HE RESIGNED TO SKIRT THE BENGHAZI HEARINGS!” (he testified.)
“WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE THIS!–McCain” (skipped the briefing yesterday)
“WE NEED MORE INFORMATION!!!–Rand Paul” (skipped the briefing).
5 of the 8 GOP members of the committee meeting for a classified briefing didn’t give enough of an actual fuck to show up.
so, in a nutshell, this is just rabble-rousing. there’s maybe something more to the story, like why we were in Bengz to start with, but as more data trickles in, it’s shaping up more and more to be a total, none event as far as the scandal–but a pretty deplorable moment the GOP seized upon to gain some kind of traction.
cites:
go to the election section, “final word on benghazi” thread–there’s like 900 good cites. this ain’t our first rodeo, here.
some of this is subject to evolution as more info is revealed, but everything has been cited as of posting
Atlantic Wire just posted a report of what Susan Rice at State said vs what the CIA told her - released from the Senate Intelligence Committee today after their meeting with Petraeus.
By “vs”, they mean “=” of course.
Well, that depends on whether there is an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ after the name of the person being interviewed…
LIHOP, mostly, I think, with some riffs on whether the President acknowledged that it was terrorism or used the phrase “high spirits.” Or something like that, foreign policy is beyond my ken.