[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:19, said:

I think the implication of Mr. Panetta's testimony is that if they sent in too little force, that would have been a bad thing. I agree. I hope that they didn't think sending in overwhelming force would have been a bad thing.

"Overwhelming" force wasn't available.
As I understand matters, there was a total of four additional special forces in Tripoli available in the whole country.

As long as we're waving magic wands, why not wish that the entire incident didn't happen.

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-16, 09:41, said:

http://www.huffingto..._b_3246847.html

Wonderful. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to post this as some sort of reasonable element in the discourse?

The Cesca piece is exactly what I'd expect from HuffPo lefties, misdirection and almost relevant "facts." It's a pile of crap, and it has nothing to do with any fact-finding attempt by Graham or Fox News or anyone else. This is a guy with a "put anything out there to protect Hilary/BHO with any kind of emotional bullshit you can come up with" agenda. "??????"s and "!!!!!!"s galore.

Is anyone claiming American installations aren't routine targets for these groups? No. Is this guy claiming Fox didn't report these events? No. Is he claiming that these events should have excited inquiry? Apparently, yes. If he's at all honest, he believes and wants his readership to believe that these attacks are of the same nature as the Benghazi attack. In fact, except for the people who were killed at Karachi, all of the dead were innocents or staff in the wrong place at the wrong time or security personel defending the installations; in fact, except for Yemen and Jeddah, the attacks were either bombs -- got time to respond to that, American pigs? -- or a few armed people who were killed by security personnel; in fact, all of these attacks were over in fairly short order. The result in all of these attacks was that security measures in place worked to the extent they could work to repel the attacks and kill the attackers.

Judge for yourselves:

http://en.wikipedia....nsulate_attacks

http://en.wikipedia....m_in_Uzbekistan

http://www.guardian....saudiarabia.usa

http://www.washingto...6091200345.html

http://en.wikipedia....Istanbul_attack

http://en.wikipedia....mbassy_in_Yemen

[Flem72]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:19, said:

If it was not really a consulate, what was the ambassador doing there?

I was made aware early on that CIA was involved in tracking arms delivery routes in North Africa and was operating out of this installation. Ambassador Stevens was working the operation as State liaison.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 10:43, said:

Wonderful. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to post this as some sort of reasonable element in the discourse?

Sorry, I forgot...

When brown and black people die, it doesn't count as anything wrong.
I'll try to do better next time and remember just what I'm dealing with...

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 10:19, said:

I think the implication of Mr. Panetta's testimony is that if they sent in too little force, that would have been a bad thing. I agree. I hope that they didn't think sending in overwhelming force would have been a bad thing.

You seem to be implying that the military could easily have helped and chose not to. What is your evidence for this?

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 09:47, said:

So, just politics. I take it you don't care to attempt to place this in the continuum of situations from just politics to something more? Anything from 'geez, we can't let Libya look bad, it's our baby' to high crimes and misdemeanors?

I'm not saying I know, I'm just curious that there is so little interest, in the general public, in answering the question: If this is a conscious effort to (shall we say) distort the facts for political ends, and if that effort motivated or delayed beyond effectiveness the decision to forego deployment of available support forces, how do we characterize those actions?

This is a despicable and disgusting attempt to distort facts for political ends. The tragic death of our citizens and ambassador shouldn't be used for such shallow political fodder. When we as a country are attacked, we come together, we do not descend into petty politics.

I am so sorry, but the Republican party is dysfunctional, they know nothing of patriotism, they can't even fake it effectively.

Really, this is coming down to whether or not he called it an act of terror rather than a terrorist attack? Are you nuts, this is perhaps the stupidest controversy ever. Seriously, mad respect to Fox News for being so good at their gig that they can keep this crap floating for this long.

Sure, if there was a delay in troop deployment that was politically motivated, that would be heinous. But there is a massive problem with this claim. There is no evidence that this happened and there is nothing political to be gained by delaying troop deployment. It is flawed on both ends. Even if you buy into the absurd idea that the word choice was demonstrating a cynical attempt to play politics, how would delaying troop deployment have furthered that? Could we not deploy troops for an act of terror? Would we not have? What was there to be gained, politically, by intentionally and knowingly letting them die? I mean that is, effectively, what you are claiming, it is so stupid as to defy belief.

We are going to gain politically by committing political suicide. That is what you are claiming the democratic party plan was, well actually this does appear to be the republican parties plan, so I dunno, maybe you do have something.

[Flem72]

awm, on 2013-May-15, 21:13, said:

I think this is a pretty transparent political ploy to make Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton look bad.

Quote

The thing is, there are legitimate questions that could be asked about why a consulate in a pretty dangerous part of the world wasn't better protected, and perhaps about how US intelligence didn't anticipate this event. However, as far as I can tell these legitimate questions are not the focus of the investigation.

I'd suggest that this is because Pickering/Mullen ARB actually did look into the pre-attack situation. See http://www.state.gov...tion/202446.pdf

Quote

Instead, the investigation focuses on why UN Ambassador Susan Rice didn't immediately announce on TV that it was a terrorist attack and start laying blame. The other questions seem to be "who knew what when?" and "who changed the talking points and why?" and "when Obama said this was an act of terror, was that the same as saying it was a terrorist attack, and why didn't he name specific terrorist organizations?" None of these strike me as being legitimate issues at all.

Is this slant accurate? by which I mean, are these things the focus or just the tip of the iceberg? I would say the investigation focuses only upon what was known when, a turn of phrase that was famously made popular in the course of the Watergate hearings. The fact that the talking points were -- shall we say -- "edited" is just evidence of what DOS and WH may actually have known but claimed in front of God and everyone else not to have known.

Why would anyone have a problem announcing a terrorist attack on an embassy/consulate/installation if there was no political iron in the fire? I don't believe that government failed promptly to announce a terrorist attack in any of the situations hrothgar posted from the Cesco article--for instance. It seems to me to be relevant to the common good whether someone, or several someones, in a position of trust and responsibility initiated a coverup because s/he knew/knows that the actual screwup was not a poor decision made in good faith on incomplete information but a selfishly motivated, considered decision, made with knowledge of the facts, purely to protect a political position. The Watergate burglary was trivial; a failure to act in the Benghazi scenario -- no one now disputes that there was real-time information -- seems to me at best cowardly and incompetent and at worst immoral. I'd like to see any and all information that might indicate which it was/is.

Quote

Obviously the government may not want to lay everything out in a public forum when an investigation and possible counterstrike is still ongoing! In fact it would have been irresponsible for the administration to give out this information at that time... and even if they misjudged the sensitivity of the situation slightly that hardly merits an investigation.

Huh? I'm aware of no evidence of any thought of a counterstrike? (A CIA operative claims we know who did it and he's still walking around.)

I assume you mean investigation of what happened. What, they couldn't believe the drone footage or the Libyan president or their own folks on the ground? Of course, this administration is very good at 'ongoingly investigating' problems to death....

Irresponsible how?

Do you believe that 'misjudgment of sensitivity' is an accurate description of the facts as now known? That's as good an obfuscatory/minimalizing label as any I've ever seen. Congratulations.

Again, I'm amazed that many, maybe most, can see the smoke but conclude -- without seeing any need to investigate -- there is no fire. The fact that the synchophant press is now acting something like real journalists are supposed to act should be a tipoff to anyone with eyes to see.

[Winstonm]

At this point the Republican party (and their mouthpiece, Fox News) has cried wolf so many times that no reasonable person pays them any mind about any claim they might make.

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 11:43, said:

Do you believe that 'misjudgment of sensitivity' is an accurate description of the facts as now known? That's as good an obfuscatory/minimalizing label as any I've ever seen. Congratulations.

He is referring to the sensitivity of lunatics believing that there is anything here.

Quote

Again, I'm amazed that many, maybe most, can see the smoke but conclude -- without seeing any need to investigate -- there is no fire. The fact that the synchophant press is now acting something like real journalists are supposed to act should be a tipoff to anyone with eyes to see.

The only smoke here is coming from the Republican party setting themselves on fire and wasting everyone's time trying to put it out.

[billw55]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 11:43, said:

The Watergate burglary was trivial; a failure to act in the Benghazi scenario -- no one now disputes that there was real-time information -- seems to me at best cowardly and incompetent and at worst immoral. I'd like to see any and all information that might indicate which it was/is.

If the relevant commanders 1. knew what was going on (reasonable) and 2. had adequate forces available and 3. did not deploy them, then this could be construed as a serious failure of leadership.

However, it seems more likely that the the commanders did not have adequate forces available, considering that some factors must have been unknown (how many attackers, what types of weapons, etc). Making a decision to not throw away additional lives is difficult, and there is no way to be sure afterward that it was right or wrong.

Watergate was much more serious in that it involved deliberate criminal activity ordered by the president. Nobody died or was hurt, but this was not just a difficult decision. It was criminal. Totally different situation.

None of this is under debate though as far as I can see. The controversy (?) and hearings seem to be solely about how the information was handled. To my mind, this is what is trivial, and most likely shows that they have nothing better.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-May-16, 12:28, said:

If the relevant commanders 1. knew what was going on (reasonable) and 2. had adequate forces available and 3. did not deploy them, then this could be construed as a serious failure of leadership.

Agree completely.

But I haven't seen any sign that the administration shrinks from using force against terrorists, nor can I imagine what the motive would be for their behaving differently in this case. On the other hand, the terrorists succeeded in Benghazi, and if anything can be learned to improve security, those lessons should inform future defensive measures. No doubt the affected agencies and the military are looking at it just that way.

The congressional smoke-blowing is, of course, foolishness -- and boring now to all but the partisan rug-chewers.

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-16, 11:02, said:

You seem to be implying that the military could easily have helped and chose not to. What is your evidence for this?

I'm not implying anything, I'm asking questions.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 12:57, said:

I'm not implying anything, I'm asking questions.

You can't do one without the other. Language, or at least English language, is incapable of conveying full intent. There are always things left unsaid, generally for the sake of brevity and other practical reasons. These things are implicitly understood.

I could ask you if you raped that 8 year old girl 12 years ago, I could say I am not implying you did, just asking the question. But really, by asking the question, an implication is being made.

You are implying many things when asking questions. Don't try to cop out of it.

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-16, 10:52, said:

Sorry, I forgot...

When brown and black people die, it doesn't count as anything wrong.
I'll try to do better next time and remember just what I'm dealing with...

ah, I see, you are an expert at misdirection, innuendo and irrelevancy. Maybe you could address what I actually wrote? And how racist of you to assume that I am neither brown nor black (nor human?) and therefore lack empathy.

I forgot, and have been reminded, that I plonked you once before; should never have taken on that ludicrous Cesco thing.

[Flem72]

dwar0123, on 2013-May-16, 11:14, said:

This is a despicable and disgusting attempt to distort facts for political ends.

Assuming,of course, you refer to the investigation, and, again, I ask: How at this point do you know that?

[Flem72]

billw55, on 2013-May-16, 12:28, said:

Watergate was much more serious in that it involved deliberate criminal activity ordered by the president.

I may have forgotten, but I believe the evidence was that Haldeman and Erlichman ordered it, but Nixon went down for orchestrating the coverup.

[Flem72]

dwar0123, on 2013-May-16, 13:17, said:

You are implying many things when asking questions. Don't try to cop out of it.

Part of the problem in dealing with dolts is that they don't respond to what you say but to what they think you want to say but haven't.

I'm not implying anything here: I've expressed my full intent..

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 13:28, said:

Assuming,of course, you refer to the investigation, and, again, I ask: How at this point do you know that?

How do I know that you are not a serial killer with 22 deaths on your hands? We should investigate that. I, at this point, do not know it to be false.

[dwar0123]

Flem72, on 2013-May-16, 13:33, said:

Part of the problem in dealing with dolts is that they don't respond to what you say but to what they think you want to say but haven't.

I'm not implying anything here: I've expressed my full intent..

Ya, dealing with dolts is a problem, sometimes they even respond to what was meant for others as if it was meant for them.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-16, 12:57, said:

I'm not implying anything, I'm asking questions.

Horsepucky. Either you believe someone in this forum was privy to the decision making at the Pentagon and in the field, and is at liberty to discuss details, or you believe the military would normally have taken some different action but chose not to in this case. The chance of the first is vanishingly small, so we have to go with the second.