Benghazigate: How do Liberals see it?

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam_Stone

People aren’t generally hauled out of their homes by a large group of officers, with media present, for a probation violation.

This ain’t Canuckistan, bub.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Jman

My opinion is: I don’t understand what people are upset about. It seems to me people are upset because Obama didn’t say it was a terrorist attack for a while.

My thoughts: Who cares? As long as they were dealing with it internally, I couldn’t care less what was said to us. I don’t see why it matters.

This.

This was a crime, not an act of war. Should a metropolitan chief of police be fired because his department didn’t catch *all *the crooks?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@XT

No we aren’t and we never were. Come on. We politicize deaths all the time. Let’s get real here.

And if Romney does win, this is one of the things that will push him over the top.

[Frisco]

I’m just wondering why protection for these Americans was inadequate, regardless of whether it was the 9/11 anniversary. And I’m wondering why there was no response during the attack, regardless if the men under attack were calling for help for several hours.

The video story and the producer being jailed until after the election and the campaign noise on both sides seem irrelevant to me, but I guess I understand why some people care. The issue seems to be impacting the polls if not the election, but I doubt the public will know what happened until well after.

[ralph124c]

The admiral in charge of US Naval forces in the area was just transferred-coincidence? There seem to be some odd events taking place-we haven’t heard the last of this.

[CaptMurdock]

@ralph124c

The admiral in charge of US Naval forces in the area was just transferred-coincidence? There seem to be some odd events taking place-we haven’t heard the last of this.

Link?

[elucidator]

The question that is making my brain itch: why did Amb. Stevens go to Benghazi?

[toadspittle]

@elucidator

The question that is making my brain itch: why did Amb. Stevens go to Benghazi?

All kinds of things. Like working to improve the local hospital facilities:

ON Wednesday morning, my colleagues and I were to meet in Benghazi with J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, to discuss a plan for a new division of emergency medicine at Benghazi Medical Center, the largest and most modern hospital in eastern Libya. The meeting never took place. The night before, militants laid siege to the American Consulate in Benghazi, killing the ambassador and three other Americans. The ambassador was taken, without a pulse, to the hospital we hoped to upgrade.

The draft agreement we were working on was the kind of visionary effort to improve life in Libya that Ambassador Stevens liked — in this case, a collaboration between doctors in Boston and Benghazi, brokered by a nongovernmental organization that a Libyan-American and I had organized after the recent revolution. Our goal was a center that could also serve as a training facility for all of eastern Libya. It was the kind of public-private and Libyan-American partnership that Ambassador Stevens believed could help Libya move beyond decades of stagnation and despotism.

On Tuesday night, even as the men who would kill him were closing in, Ambassador Stevens told us by phone how happy he was that the project was nearing fruition. He told us it was important to show our government’s support for such initiatives, and we made plans to meet with the medical center’s director general, Dr. Fathi al-Jehani, at the hospital the next morning. Dr. Jehani himself had been a target of violence for his forward-thinking views.

[Spice_Weasel]

Hello. I know next to nothing about national security, but I am a liberal, so I humbly submit my uneducated opinion that the Obama Administration is probably covering some shit up. I also think it’s probably only being covered up because of the election. Not because they have something to be ashamed of, but because the conservative media would take it and run with it, whatever it is. What I’m saying is, I think like every other government in the history of the U.S., information is being suppressed, but I don’t actually care or think it means anything.

[Little_Nemo]

There does seem to be an element of “The Obama administration must be covering something up because they haven’t admitted to doing anything wrong. And whatever the Obama administration did must have been wrong because they’re covering it up.”

We’re approaching the point of “I find the lack of evidence to support my suspicions very suspicious.”

[Sam_Stone]

@olivesmarch4th

Hello. I know next to nothing about national security, but I am a liberal, so I humbly submit my uneducated opinion that the Obama Administration is probably covering some shit up. I also think it’s probably only being covered up because of the election. Not because they have something to be ashamed of, but because the conservative media would take it and run with it, whatever it is. What I’m saying is, I think like every other government in the history of the U.S., information is being suppressed, but I don’t actually care or think it means anything.

Kind of like Romney’s tax returns, huh?

[Sam_Stone]

@Little_Nemo

There does seem to be an element of “The Obama administration must be covering something up because they haven’t admitted to doing anything wrong. And whatever the Obama administration did must have been wrong because they’re covering it up.”

We’re approaching the point of “I find the lack of evidence to support my suspicions very suspicious.”

Uh, no. More like "The Obama administration must be covering something up because a week after they knew there was no riot and that the attack was carried out by a terrorist group, they were still claiming that it was random violence caused by a riot over a video tape.

When you send the U.N. ambassador out to the Sunday talk shows to claim something that you know damned well isn’t true, or at least isn’t likely to be true, you need to have a reason for that. None has been offered.

Even the ‘fog of war’ claim they’re falling back on doesn’t make sense, because they didn’t come out and say “We don’t know what happened yet - we’re still investigating.” They came out with a story that they repeated with relative certitude for two weeks until leaks started calling it into question, then they flipped overnight to, “Well of course it was terrorism. That’s self-evident.” It was a bizarre switch.

I still maintain that the likely ‘cover-up’ was nothing more than an attempt to bury the lede and confuse the issue until after the election, at which time the ‘investigation’ would have revealed the terrorist angle. The Obama campaign just didn’t want to deal with an al-Qaida attack in the month before the election, and didn’t want to give the Romney campaign the ammo. So they were trying to run out the clock. That makes it a cover-up, but a minor one.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam_Stone

Uh, no. More like "The Obama administration must be covering something up because a week after they knew there was no riot and that the attack was carried out by a terrorist group, they were still claiming that it was random violence caused by a riot over a video tape.

So what? Why is this an issue?

[Little_Nemo]

@Sam_Stone

I still maintain that the likely ‘cover-up’ was nothing more than an attempt to bury the lede and confuse the issue until after the election, at which time the ‘investigation’ would have revealed the terrorist angle. The Obama campaign just didn’t want to deal with an al-Qaida attack in the month before the election, and didn’t want to give the Romney campaign the ammo. So they were trying to run out the clock. That makes it a cover-up, but a minor one.

That makes no sense. The Obama administration has shown it’s much better at fighting terrorists than the Bush administration was. Calling it a terrorist attack would have been playing to their strengths.

[Sam_Stone]

Because it’s not the truth? Because it might be useful for other Americans in the Middle East to know that a terror attack has taken place? Because the families of those killed deserve to know what happened? Because you don’t want your government lying over issues of national security to improve their electoral chances?

After all, if you don’t think there’s anything wrong with this, what are you going to say when a Republican administration does the same thing? One of the problems with American politics is that partisans on both sides tend to look the other way when the government in power is of their own party. Then that government creates precedents that get used by the next government, and suddenly you discover just how bad an idea it was.

A good example is executive power. When Bush was increasing it, the left howled in outrage. But then Obama became president and if anything increased the rate at which the executive is grabbing power, and suddenly the left is silent. Well, guess who’s going to use all that new power the President has? Mitt Romney. Or if Obama gets elected again, whoever the next Republican president happens to be.

[Fear_Itself]

The difference between a street demonstration and a terrorist attack is not a matter of national security.

[Sam_Stone]

Really? The killing of an American Ambassador in a terrorist attack and the sacking of an American Consulate isn’t a matter of national security?

Whatever, dude.

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam_Stone

Really? The killing of an American Ambassador in a terrorist attack and the sacking of an American Consulate isn’t a matter of national security?

Whatever, dude.

No, I said the difference between a terrorist attack and a street demonstration changes nothing about the death of an ambassador.

[Little_Nemo]

@Sam_Stone

Because it’s not the truth? Because it might be useful for other Americans in the Middle East to know that a terror attack has taken place? Because the families of those killed deserve to know what happened? Because you don’t want your government lying over issues of national security to improve their electoral chances?

You do realize most of this stuff is only in your head, right? Obama publicly called it an act of terror within a day of the attack. And repeated it again in another speech the next day.

[even_sven]

There is a Mali connection to the Benghazi attacks, and there is a lot going on in Mali at the moment.

We have been quietly setting up an enormous network of mini-bases in Africa. There is definitely a lot of surveillance in Mali at the moment, and while the current rumors about drone strikes probably are no true, there is a strong possibility of drone strikes in the future. There has been a lot of back and forth about getting ECOWAS troops in to help retake the North, and we may see action soon.

There are also just a lot of strange things happening. For example, last summer (after we had officially withdrawn military aid to Mali), three US intelligence officials were killed in Bamako, alongside three Moroccan women, when their vehicle drove off a bridge. The details of this story were slow to emerge and still don’t really add up.

Anyway, the point is that there is A LOT going on here