Benghazigate: How do Liberals see it?

Great Debates
101

This hits the nail on the head about my current view on the events in Benghazi. Put simply, I don’t know what happened, there are not enough facts to determine what happened yet, and there likely won’t be for awhile. So I’m withholding judgment on the actions (or non actions) of the administration until we know, with some degree of veracity, what really happened.

Personally, I find the reports like the article you linked to and the massive speculation by the right more harm than good to the credibility of any allegations against this administration. Right now, it appears the right will say anything, make up anything, to try and discredit the administration to try and win an election. So any actual damning facts are quickly drowned out by the screeching and wailing.

I just want access to actual facts and the context of those facts before making a judgment.

102

No. This is all Fox News has, so they are going to be banging this drum until election time. It’s apparently more important than a hurricane hitting major cities and killing 50.

“No scandal? Well then get out there an manufacture one!”

103

What is says to me is that they must not be able to find anything better than this to use against Obama, so he must either be doing a lot of things right.

104

I think this sums up my views better than I did. In large part, I’ve come to realize that anything Republicans make a talking point out of is nothing I should be listening to. In this case, that may be overriding some justifiable concern I would otherwise have had about the administration’s handling of the event.

105

Obviously the word “either” does not belong there. :smack:

106

But didn’t the administration jump to conclusions about what was responsible? They said it was spontaneous and a direct result of an offensive youtube video.

The administration even asked youtube twice to take the video down.

107

They asked YouTube to take it down before the Benghazi attacks.

108

I’m afraid this story isn’t staying bottled up until after the election.

CBS News: Sources: Key task force not convened during Benghazi consulate attack

The new E-mails and revelations that are coming out are pretty damning to the Obama administration. It’s starting to look like everyone did their job rapidly - right up to the White House, where everything ground to a halt because ‘top administration officials’ dropped the ball and refused to take appropriate action or to follow the protocols set up for exactly this type of situation, leaving everyone else hanging.

For those living in a liberal bubble and therefore not understanding what the big deal is, perhaps The Las Vegas Review-Journal says it best:

So… To recap:

[ul]
[li]There were numerous threat warnings that the consulate could be attacked in the days before Sept. 11. [/li][li]There were multiple requests for additional security, which were refused. [/li][li]When the attack happened, the professionals in the region began immediately preparing to go to the aid of the people under attack. There was a strike force in Italy that was prepared to go and could have been on the scene in two hours (the attack lasted for seven). There were extra security people at the annex just a few minutes away, who asked to be allowed to go to the aid of the consulate but were told to ‘stand down’. [/li][li]The White House knew of the attack almost instantly, knew that it was a military style attack, that there were no crowds and no riots. Requests for military assistance reached the White House very quickly.[/li][li]Protocol called for the convening of the Counterterrorism Security Group, which was established precisely to provide rapid response to this type of attack as it has done in the past. For unknown reasons, the White House did not convene the CSG.[/li][li]Everything seemed to work as it was supposed to, right up to the White House, which then sat on everything and paralyzed the response.[/li][li]In the aftermath, the administration repeatedly sent out officials to obfuscate and obscure what happened for weeks afterward. As a result, the consulate and its top-secret material lay unprotected for days or even weeks afterwards. It was so bad that CNN found ambassador Steven’s personal journal in the rubble days after the attack.[/ul][/li]
The Benghazi attack may be an even bigger deal, because the Benghazi complex was also the home to the CIA’s program to hunt down and recover up to 20,000 shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. Sources close to the mission say that this was a huge setback for U.S. intelligence. Those Man-portable missiles are easy to smuggle, and a handful of them could cripple the world’s aviation network and kill thousands of people. Up to 20,000 are missing.

But you’re probably right - there’s nothing to see here. Move along. Just more Republican craziness. Nothing here that voters should possibly know about the president’s response to a crisis.

109

Well, I’m certainly convinced by your uncited recap.

110

That was just a recap of sickening innuendo, but thanks for the reminder why one should not vote for the republicans with their accustomed release of secret information to score political points.

111

[quote=“Sam_Stone, post:108, topic:638843”]

[ul]
[li]There were numerous threat warnings that the consulate could be attacked in the days before Sept. 11. [/li][li]There were multiple requests for additional security, which were refused. [/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
There is no evidence point 2 would have made any difference to point 1.

112

Not to mention the unattributed editorial you quoted.

113

RNATB, Mayor of Doper-land.

114

RNATB, who’s heard about Obama’s birth certificate, global warming as hoax, voter fraud that didn’t exist, creeping Sharia, “you didn’t build that”, etc.

Don’t blame me. Blame your boys who cried bullshit.

115

Everything in it can be found at the cites I posted or in the major links those cites have.

116

Foreign Policy weighs in:

Here’s an honest question: Is not a consulate considered to be U.S. territory? If so, is it appropriate for it to have been simply abandoned after the attack? It sounds like you can still just walk into the place and find sensitive documents and personal items of the dead. If this were my country, I would strongly want my government to respond by protecting it not just while under attack, but in the aftermath. This really sounds like a story of neglect or at best a misplaced foreign policy.

117

A common misconception. Neither consulates nor embassies enjoy full extraterritorial status, and are not the sovereign territory of the represented nation.

118

Well, even diehard Obama lovers must admit, the whole thing is suspicious. The fact is, items of such importance do not get to the POTUS via ordinary e-mail-they go by direct message to his staff. Obama knew of the attack within minutes. Plus, there was a drone overhead. The decision was made not to help the people on the ground-why this was taken, only Obama knows. My guess is that:
-he felt they would be killed anyway (hence his “bumps in road” remark)
-sending in a rescue force would spark a full scale confrontation
Now, somebody has to take the blame for this (a “fall guy”)…Hillary has indicated that she will not do this…the question is, who will?

119

[quote=“Sam_Stone, post:108, topic:638843”]

So… To recap:

[ul]
[li]There were numerous threat warnings that the consulate could be attacked in the days before Sept. 11.[/li][/quote]
And there were numerous warnings that Al Qaeda was planning to attack within the US before 9/11. Outrage over this kinda loses it sting after hearing all the same people having a completely different standard when the President was Republican. Personally, I’d be shocked if we didn’t have warnings like this for every country in Northern Africa, the Middle East, and maybe Central America.

[quote=Sam Stone]
[li]There were multiple requests for additional security, which were refused. [/li][/quote]
Again, hindsight is 20/20. With the multitude of issues around the globe and our resources already thin, I really can’t completely condemn Obama for this without more specific information. Definitely a concern, but not killer.

[quote=Sam Stone]
[li]When the attack happened, the professionals in the region began immediately preparing to go to the aid of the people under attack. There was a strike force in Italy that was prepared to go and could have been on the scene in two hours (the attack lasted for seven). There were extra security people at the annex just a few minutes away, who asked to be allowed to go to the aid of the consulate but were told to ‘stand down’.[/li][/quote]
I’m still waiting for reliable confirmation on this, because the main report I saw came from uncited source and from FOX, and the CIA has specifically denied this allegation Cite:

“A senior U.S. intelligence official also insisted that the CIA security team that initially responded to the attack was not given orders “to stand down in providing support,” as had been suggested in media reports.”

Again, the lack of credibility of the right makes it hard to give credence to these assertions. If it were true, and we knew the who and why of the stand down order, it would be a huge deal, but we don’t know enough, and I’m not convinced your information is reliable.

[quote=Sam Stone]

[li]The White House knew of the attack almost instantly, knew that it was a military style attack, that there were no crowds and no riots. Requests for military assistance reached the White House very quickly.[/li][li]Protocol called for the convening of the Counterterrorism Security Group, which was established precisely to provide rapid response to this type of attack as it has done in the past. For unknown reasons, the White House did not convene the CSG.[/li][/quote]
This just kinda strikes me as the "let’s throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. So the CSG wasn’t convened? And? I suppose if we knew it would have helped at all, or made any difference, I’d join in your condemnation.

[quote=Sam Stone]
[li]Everything seemed to work as it was supposed to, right up to the White House, which then sat on everything and paralyzed the response.[/li][/quote]
Another thing I’ve heard alleged that I’ve seen no reliable support for. It’s one of those allegations I see in frothy mouthed opinion pieces, but not in actual reporting with documentation. Help me out with a cite. However, if true and if it would have made a lick of difference, I would join you in condemning this administration.

[quote=Sam Stone]
[li]In the aftermath, the administration repeatedly sent out officials to obfuscate and obscure what happened for weeks afterward. As a result, the consulate and its top-secret material lay unprotected for days or even weeks afterwards. It was so bad that CNN found ambassador Steven’s personal journal in the rubble days after the attack.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I think you’re trying to shoehorn two separate things and make them a kind of “cause and effect”. The administration did sent out confusing information, which is a concern if we knew why, but the whole "as a result’ top secret material is just silly.

This is a great example of how the right wing has made themselves unbelievable to me. There are facts, mixed with innuendo and bald assertions, but, upon closer exam, it’s mostly just baloney. You draw this false conclusion of “as a result” and then include false information by using “top secret material” to refer to things that, in the very article you cite, were simply referred to as “sensitive” materials, and, from reading the article, don’t seem all that important.

This kind of misinformation is precisely why I have such a problem believing anything the right tells me.

See, the problem is there IS stuff here that concerns how the President and his administration respond to crises, but that stuff is drowned out by misinformation, hyperbole, a shifting set of standards for republican presidents, and clearly partisan hysteria.

We should be concerned with some of the information. If true, it does reflect badly on this administration (although I think not nearly as badly as the response to 9/11 did for Bush), and I’m happy to condemn them if they ordered the responders to stand down without a good reason, or if their response could have protected the people at the CIA housing. But I haven’t seen much actual evidence of that yet, and your responses really aren’t helping.

120

Since Fox News has concluded it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, suppose we blame the terrorists?