Will "BHENGAZI-GATE" screw up Hitlery's chances in 2016?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@adaher

Hey, I’m not an internet general..

Then stop acting like one. You just compared Mogadishu with Bhengazi when the situations and resources were completely different.

You are the epitome of Internet General.

[Chefguy]

Having served in the Foreign Service, here’s a question I’d like to ask all those baying after Clinton, et al: If there was imminent threat to the Embassy, the ambassador, or any other in-country Americans, what was the Ambassador doing in Benghazi instead of taking care of business in Tripoli with the local government forces and making sure his embassy was secure? Additionally, if the threats were credible enough to ask for additional security, why did he leave those people at a remote outpost instead of recalling them to Tripoli and then deliberately place himself at risk by going there? The ambassador is the senior American official in his country of assignment, after all.

It’s routine to ask for additional security people at a risky post; it’s called covering your ass in case something goes down like, say, in Benghazi. I’m quite sure that Nairobi also asked for additional security prior to the 1998 bombing, and I know for sure that Kampala did in the same time frame, as I was there. When there are no people to send, and the threat is not considered immediate or credible, you wait your turn. Unfortunately, intel supplied by field officers as credible is not necessarily viewed the same way back in WDC or Langley. This is a witch hunt; a naked political maneuver by the right to discredit someone who served honorably and to try to tar Obama with a legacy of scandal. Shame on them.

[Smapti]

I’d like to note at this that Bob Gates, the former Secretary of Defense (appointed by George W. Bush), has said today that, if he’d been president when the Benghazi incident occurred, he wouldn’t have done things any differently than Obama did;

“We don’t have a ready force standing by in the Middle East, and so getting somebody there in a timely way would have been very difficult, if not impossible.” he explained.

Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”

[…]

Another suggestion posed by some critics of the administration, to, as Gates said, “send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, would have been very dangerous.”

“It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces,” he said. “The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.”

It’s almost as if he read the last couple dozen posts in this thread just before he went on air.

[adaher]

@Smapti

If you honestly believe that US military policy is to reinforce every position under fire regardless of circumstances, then you’ve watched too many movies and played too many video games.

Again, I ask; how many military casualties are acceptable to prevent the deaths of two civilians?

Apparently, the entire FAST team, because that’s what was sent.

US military policy is to leave no man behind. Units are not abandoned in the field, EVER, unless the battle is already over and there’s no hope of rescue. Now it might be different for civilians, true, but you’d think a US ambassador would merit a quick response. You can bet if it was Hillary Clinton trapped in that consulate they would have sent army cooks with meat cleavers to save her ass if that’s all they had.

[Lobohan]

@adaher

Apparently, the entire FAST team, because that’s what was sent.

After they had the intel.

US military policy is to leave no man behind. Units are not abandoned in the field, EVER, unless the battle is already over and there’s no hope of rescue.

The only explanation for your conduct is that you’re such an intellectual coward that you can’t accept facts that show you that you’re utterly and unambiguously wrong.

Now it might be different for civilians, true, but you’d think a US ambassador would merit a quick response. You can bet if it was Hillary Clinton trapped in that consulate they would have sent army cooks with meat cleavers to save her ass if that’s all they had.

Accept that you’re wrong, and move on. Or pretend that you’re right because you don’t have a fucking molecule of integrity.

[adaher]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Then stop acting like one. You just compared Mogadishu with Bhengazi when the situations and resources were completely different.

You are the epitome of Internet General.

Ah, I get it. Someone makes an internet general argument, but my response as to why it might be wrong makes me the internet general.

As for Gates, I’m asking a simple question here. When was the last time we held back aid to Americans under fire because we didn’t have enough information? I can’t think of anytime ever, that this was done. Not helping because we simply don’t have the forces is understandable. Not helping because we needed to find out more is not. YOu don’t respond to “HELP!!!” by saying, “We’ll get back to you as soon as we find out more about what’s going on.”

Heck, maybe the first responders on 9/11 should have waited for more information before going into the towers. You know, assess whether the buildings were going to fall, make sure all the planes were grounded, that sort of thing.

Which is why to me, it sounds like a classic ad hoc excuse.

[adaher]

@Lobohan

After they had the intel.

We have not yet established what intel they were waiting for, much less whether they got it.

The only explanation for your conduct is that you’re such an intellectual coward that you can’t accept facts that show you that you’re utterly and unambiguously wrong.

That’s a funny position to take when it’s now the mainstream media, not just the right-wing media, wanting answers.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@adaher

Ah, I get it. Someone makes an internet general argument, but my response as to why it might be wrong makes me the internet general.

No, but you are happy to second guess everyone’s decision based on your own ignorance and misunderstandings.

[adaher]

I’m not second guessing so much as wanting answers. Where I am second guessing, it’s a response to the speculation about why they did what they did, written by other posters. And why those speculations don’t make sense.

[Lobohan]

@adaher

Ah, I get it. Someone makes an internet general argument, but my response as to why it might be wrong makes me the internet general.

You don’t get it. Or you do, and are unwilling to accept that you are wrong and move on.

As for Gates, I’m asking a simple question here. When was the last time we held back aid to Americans under fire because we didn’t have enough information? I can’t think of anytime ever, that this was done.

It is standard policy. Your ignorance doesn’t mean anything.

Not helping because we simply don’t have the forces is understandable. Not helping because we needed to find out more is not. YOu don’t respond to “HELP!!!” by saying, “We’ll get back to you as soon as we find out more about what’s going on.”

Reread Sampti’s post.

Heck, maybe the first responders on 9/11 should have waited for more information before going into the towers. You know, assess whether the buildings were going to fall, make sure all the planes were grounded, that sort of thing.

You can’t be stupid enough to think that this is anywhere near similar. You’re just flailing around because you’re unwilling to face reality and admit that you’re wrong.

Which is why to me, it sounds like a classic ad hoc excuse.

To me it sounds like you’re hiding behind your ignorance.

[Lobohan]

@adaher

I’m not second guessing so much as wanting answers. Where I am second guessing, it’s a response to the speculation about why they did what they did, written by other posters. And why those speculations don’t make sense.

They make perfect sense. You don’t want them to make sense, because you need, in your very marrow, for Obama to be at fault.

[

@Leon Panetta

“We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that. But the basic principle here… is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, [Africa Command] General [Carter F.] Ham, General Dempsey, and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

](Benghazi Hearing: Darrell Issa’s House Committee’s investigation of the death of Christopher Stevens and three other Americans did not tell us anything new.)Emphasis mine.

It’s not very action-movie exciting, but it’s the real world.

[Smapti]

[QUOTE=adaher]

YOu don’t respond to “HELP!!!” by saying, “We’ll get back to you as soon as we find out more about what’s going on.”
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Robert Gates]
It’s sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces. The one thing that our forces are noted for is planning and preparation before we send people in harm’s way, and there just wasn’t time to do that.
[/QUOTE]

It’s like these two lines were made for each other.

Now it might be different for civilians, true, but you’d think a US ambassador would merit a quick response.

You continue to ignore the fact that the ambassador was dead half an hour after the attack began. I doubt a Special Forces unit can even get dressed and briefed that fast.

[Latro]

@Smapti

You continue to ignore the fact that the ambassador was dead half an hour after the attack began. I doubt a Special Forces unit can even get dressed and briefed that fast.

And you keep ignoring the movies!! Which clearly state that every American in uniform is automatically a Hero. As** adaher** has pointed out to you already, even the cook and his cleaver could have held back the hordes of towelheads, long enough for a SEAL team to climb out of the Benghazi sewers.
All he is doing is asking for answers as to why this didn’t happen.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Apparently, the entire FAST team, because that’s what was sent.

US military policy is to leave no man behind. Units are not abandoned in the field, EVER, unless the battle is already over and there’s no hope of rescue.

You have no idea what US military policy is- why are you still pretending you do? Not to mention that help was sent in, but not until they had sufficient tactical information. Unfortunately that was too late for 4 Americans- but there’s no evidence that any dereliction of duty or misconduct was responsible for (or contributed to) their deaths.

[elucidator]

Hey, when American troops were trapped on the Bataan peninsula, the American military machine cranked up, and sent in a force sufficient to rescue Gen. MacArthur!

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s a good summary of what this is all about: “What the fuck is all this Benghazi shit?”

In increasing order of craziness, here’s what the proposed and possible scandals are:

• The scandal is the State Department’s failure to adequately protect and secure the Benghazi compound, despite requests to do so from Ambassador Stevens. This is an actual, documented failure, and basically everyone agrees that it is a scandal, and it is what the State Department’s own report, released in December, found: “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels…resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” It’s also not what anyone in Congress seems to care about.

• The scandal is the administration’s failure to undertake immediate military action as soon as it heard that attacks were taking place. This week House Republicans paraded a series of witnesses in front of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to testify that the Obama administration and the Pentagon didn’t do everything they could have to save the Benghazi consulate. The idea seems to be that there is some badass special operations team that could have been instantly deployed to rescue the Benghazi personnel—but the Pentagon has flatly denied this, and the numbers don’t add up anyway.

• The scandal is that the administration attempted to cover up the fact that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, so the news wouldn’t harm Obama in the election. This is the one that has mainstream conservatives salivating. They’re specifically interested in the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who (during appearances on Sunday talk shows) said that the attack grew out of spontaneous protests; today, ABC’s Jonathan Karl released a series of a memos showing how the State Department successfully lobbied for the removal of some references to terrorists. This, Republicans claim, proves—uh, well it proves that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney lied about there being no “substantive” revisions to the talking points, depending on how you define “substantive.” The memos don’t make the State Department look noble, but they also show that before and throughout the revision process the top talking point across all memos was still about spontaneous protests—and that the motivation was more inter-agency cover-your-ass jockeying than protecting Obama.

• The scandal is that the Benghazi consulate was a CIA front being used to sell arms to Syrian rebels. This is what, uh, Senator Rand Paul seems to believe (or at least seems to think it’s convenient for him to seem to believe): “I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he told CNN. In fairness to Paul, part of whatever confusing and misdirection was happening around Benghazi was the CIA lying because the CIA lies without regard to party. (One thing those ABC memos do show is the CIA trying to foist all blame off on the State Department.) But as Paul himself acknowledges, this particular conspiracy theory has almost nothing to do with the mainstream “Obama was unready and tried to cover up the terrorism” line—it’s more of an InfoWars thing than a Daily Caller thing. Nevertheless, it insinuates that something bad happened, so it gets play.

• The scandal is that the Obama administration colluded with terrorists, possibly to fake a kidnapping that would result in the release of the 1993 World Trade Center bomber Omar Abdel Rahman, as an October surprise. The Atlantic Wire’s Elspeth Reeve runs this one down. I don’t even know.

[Chefguy]

@BrainGlutton

Here’s a good summary of what this is all about: “What the fuck is all this Benghazi shit?”

The scandal is the State Department’s failure to adequately protect and secure the Benghazi compound, despite requests to do so from Ambassador Stevens. This is an actual, documented failure, and basically everyone agrees that it is a scandal, and it is what the State Department’s own report, released in December, found: “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels…resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.” It’s also not what anyone in Congress seems to care about.

This one really gets me. I know the guy who was in charge of installing security measures in Libya, who related the following: Instead of finding decent buildings that could be adequately protected, in 2006 the State Department was pressured into setting up shop in the former “Liaison Office” in poorly constructed local buildings. Benghazi was and is a joke, security-wise.

I ask again: if Benghazi and Tripoli were in such danger of attack, and given that the consulate in Benghazi was a joke, what the hell was Stevens doing away from the Embassy without adequate protection? The guy sounds like he was a cowboy to me, no disrespect for the departed.

[42fish]

@Lobohan

To me it sounds like you’re hiding behind your ignorance.

You can’t blame the man for playing to his strengths.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@adaher

I’m not second guessing so much as wanting answers.

Ah, so you’re JAQing off. I guess that’s not just for Glen Beck anymore.

And I see you’ve already used the classic “people are talking about it” meme.

You’re batting 100%!

[Katriona]

@Mr.Miskatonic

Please, its The Iron Patriot.

War Machine is way cooler.