After 9/11 Bush invaded invaded Afghanistan and drove the Taliban into the mountains.
What bothers me is Obama seems to be just wagging his finger saying “bad , bad, don’t do that again”. Not that we should invade Libya, but there has to be something to do between those extremes.
No one is saying that this one thing should cause you to vote against Obama. Just that the coverup is part of a pattern. I’ve never seen an administration so focused on politics and messaging as this one.
Really? “Unpredictable?” What with Muslims rioting all around the world? It would have been a surprise?
And the sentence that begins “there is also the fact” does not relate a fact, but your opinion. If you are going to state your certain knowledge of what Obama is thinking, it would be good if you could submit your Certificate of Telepathy for inspection.
And if the Yurpeens want to delay the exit of Greece from the Eurozone, there can be no other reason but pressure from Obama? Is that due to their allegiance to the international socialist agenda? But this is “private” urging, yes? No public hint of such a position, no public hint of concern that the collapse of the Euro would have serious consequences for the American economy?
If it were all “private” (read: “secret”), who told you? Dare we hope that it is not the same sources that so recently embarrassed Sam Stone (which turns out to be OK, because that was Obama’s fault too!)
Your join date is May 2003. And you cannot recall an administration “so focused on politics and messaging as this one”? That’s droll irony, right?
See, here’s the thing: our enemies are promoting the idea that the US is at war with Islam. This is their number one recruiting line, it works, it has worked, it continues to work. This theme has the fervent support of narrow-minded nitwits in our own country, who positively welcome such an idea. Fuckin’ great, just what we need. Aid and comfort for the enemy given by people who are convinced they are weakening our enemy by exposing the harsh truth of Islamic war for world domination.
It is the ugliest sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Every day, people are dying for this lie. If anyone has a way to undermine this horror, I am hard pressed to condemn them for “spin”. YMMV.
Really? So we started a war with Iraq because of, what… wrong directions on a map??
You’re right- he didn’t spend weeks lying his ass off about 9/11… he spent *months *lying about 9/11.
Ah, irony.
@Lightning: So Obama is little better than Bush? That’s your argument?
And here I thought it was all about the death of some good people, and the danger our diplomats face at these frontier posts. The ability of politicians to change the narrative reflects their legal training and the willingness of people like you to buy into it. It’s shameful to use these men as political tools. I’m sure their families are wondering why they ever decided to put their lives on the line.
As for lying about what transpired, I’m more in the camp of confusion reigning supreme and timelines being out of whack. The attack has the earmarks of being well thought out, but amateurs have scored successes before this. We’ll know more once the investigation is completed, but may never know if this was a bunch of organized terrorists or a random group of malcontents. Has al quaida or anybody else claimed responsibility yet? They’re usually quick to crow about their victories.
A bit more about Libya: I spoke to an old FS friend of mine this morning. He had a career with Diplomatic Security on the technical side, not as an agent. But he was heavily involved in setting up the technical security of the Libya embassy in Tripoli not all that long ago. The place is a security nightmare, being basically some local villas, around which Americans built a wall, while the mission operated out of a hotel. In his opinion, the attack could just as easily have happened in Tripoli as at Benghazi, with the outcome likely being the same.
There were no DS personnel with the ambassador on his Benghazi visit, probably against all advice to the contrary. I served with ambassadors who took chances like that, to the point of embassy security people putting their objections in writing to prevent future blowback. Given the poor quality of the Tripoli embassy, I’m sure the consulate/CIA station in Benghazi is little more than poorly constructed local buildings. This is typical in frontier posts. It’s not surprising that it was so easily breached; additional security would likely not have helped.
As early as the first day, they knew that the attacks were coordinated and were not simply the result of a mob demo run amok. When asked if the attacks were an “act of war”, Obama mislead everyone into thinking that it was caused by anger over a video. There’s no getting around this no matter how biased one is- he lied for political reasons.
Wrong. He always stated from day one it was a terrorist attack; he did not spend weeks deflecting, shifting blame and flat out lying to the public. Right now, the Obama administration still can’t get it’s story correct. From day one the Obama story has been contradicted by actual reports from inside Libya. First it wasn’t a terrorist attack, then it was. First if was a “spontaneous” attack over a months old video, then it was planned. Virtually everything the Obama administration said weeks ago they’ve backtracked. Stephanie Cutter herself has given FOUR different excuses. No one in the Obama administration has a straight story. They’ve done everything from blaming Republicans for “politicizing” the matter, to blaming intelligence for the “breakdown” to blaming the state department (oh, Bill and Hillary aren’t exactly happy about that, according to reports) to blaming the Boosh.
But yeah, that’s totally like 9/11/2001.
Learn what irony is. People are CONSTANTLY misusing the term. But, as it stands, no it’s not “ironic”. It’s actually quite sad.
That’s like double backtwist irony there.
No, it’s totally not like 9/11. But if we’re going to talk lies, let’s go back and discuss the whopper of all lies, the claims of WMD. I’d rather not, but since you guys want to change the conversation whenever you can’t change the facts, feel free to defend it. In this case, if Obama is lying, it cost nothing but political capital. In the case of Bush/Cheney, their lies cost 4,000 American lives and untold Iraqi lives. Okay, now you go. Hello? Is this thing on?
Has it occurred to you or any of the other people baying at the moon that the key element in all this is that Benghazi is a CIA outpost, as outed by your Republicans on the House committee (who, by the way, should be censured for doing so)? Any president with half a brain is going to hedge on what may have happened there and why there aren’t any military security forces there, and who may have been involved and why. Otherwise, he ends up putting the lives of agents and operatives at risk. Now, Dick Cheney may not have cared about outing Valerie Plame and her operatives, but then he has no conscience and no moral fiber.
So please carry on with your faux outrage and diversionary tactics and political motivation. Nobody is buying it other than those with like minds.
Oh, look. A post about the Boosh. Surprise surprise! Newsflash buddy; Bush is gone. And not only is he gone, but contrary to popular belief he didn’t go to war by himself. Sooner or later one would think you’d think you’d start focusing on the current president and his failings and not the failings of his predecessor, who hasn’t been president in almost four years.
Requested and denied. Warned and ignored. Lied and pointed fingers elsewhere. That about sums it up.
Interesting. Not that you guys don’t care about facts or anything, but over the past three or so weeks during this whole Benghazi issue, Obama has actually taken a hit on the issue of foreign policy so much so to the point now where Romney is running about dead even or slightly ahead of Obama (Obama once led this issue comfortably). So, apparently, there are quite a few people concerned about this who deem it more than just “faux outrage and diversionary tactics”. Who knew?
Please continue living in that box of yours.
Not true! The subject is tearing them up over at Breitbart, a wildfire that threatens to engulf…well, everything! Was pretty hot over at Freeperville, but then the meds kicked in…
But what was he doing there? That’s the part I don’t get. The first story was that he rushed there because of the demonstrations. But they didn’t happen. So what gets the ambassador from his actual embassy to some backwater consulate on the other side of the country?
I like Chefguy’s theory of a more or less operational cover-up, not so much covering up misdeeds and stupidity, but covering up actual secrets. Trouble is, of course, you can’t give a truthful explanation without blowing the cover. Doesn’t prove anything, but there you go. Sometimes its like that.
Keep ranting, keep changing the conversation and trivializing what happened there. It denigrates their service and suits you. I’ve lived that life, whereas I’m sure you get all your information from the internet. What a joke you are, and an unfunny, ill-informed one, at that.
Nope, and I’m not sure where, exactly, you found that in what I said.
My argument is that Obama is *much *better than Bush.
This point about it being a CIA base appears crucial. Do you really intend not to answer the substance of the argument?!
What was a “CIA base”? The building that housed the consulate? Does that have anything to do with why Stevens even went to Benghazi?
Yeah, if I’d elected the guy I’d be pretty embarrassed of him as well, and would try to do anything to try to dissuade voters from remembering how badly he screwed up things- preferably by pointing fingers and trying to pretend that all the world’s problems started the day the next guy got into power. We certainly can’t blame you for trying.
And yet, like a fart in a church pew, his legacy lingers on.