Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Truth Between Conflicting Libya Stories

Anyone watching threads below will know I’ve been arguing with other folks on the site about the events surrounding the attack in Benghazi. I have called into question the right’s theory of the attack and the political motivations behind it. As new evidence comes in the flaws in their theory and mine have come to light.

Whether or not the attack was related to the video seems to be one of the two biggest pieces of contention here. The early story went that this was a protest of the video that turned into a violent attack on the compound. When that story shifted to the reality that it was not just protesters out of control, but instead a well armed militia, somehow the right thought that implied that the video was definitely not related. They missed the fact that the only thing that shifted was the origin of the attack, not the motivation for it.

The only real source for saying no that I've seen has been Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He made his statement of denial based on what he said are claims by the State Department. But yet I've seen no evidence that the State Department has made such a claim. Issa's statement is the root of most reporting now that the video was not motivation.

When the news came out early this week that within hours the administration was told that Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsibility, this seems to have solidified the right's case that Obama lied on purpose about the video. But I've pointed out that the New York Times has been reporting for weeks that Ansar al Sharia was believed to be responsible. They also report this same militia claimed their motivation was the video.

So was it the video or not? At this point I'd welcome any statement by the Obama administration, the State Department, or intelligence community saying it was not a motivation.

The next big area of contention is the relationship between these militants and al Qaeda. Indeed, LA Times reported last Friday that there was still no evidence of a connection. But reports this week given by CNN show this may no longer be the case.

The latest intelligence suggests the core group of suspects from the first wave of the attack on the Benghazi mission numbered between 35 to 40. Around a dozen of the attackers are believed to be connected to either al Qaeda in Iraq or al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the government official said.

This will be seen as a vindication by some on the right but of course this is a reversal of reports that stated up until sometime last week that no ties had been found. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The third big area of contention is how far ahead this was planned and if it was tied to 9/11. If this was planned well ahead this means the Obama administration is more at fault for not preventing it. They should have known an attack would come on 9/11, right? Also we know the State Department knew they wanted more security but it isn't clear if it would have mattered.

So was there information ahead of time that would have prevented an attack of this scale? Sources like Washington Post are still saying no:

"There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance," a U.S. intelligence official said. "The bulk of available information supports the early assessment that the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo."

Again that takes us back to the video being at least indirectly responsible. The article also backs up what CNN has added to this week but points out an important distinction:

The violence in Benghazi appears to have involved militants with ties to al-Qaeda in North Africa, but no evidence indicates that it was organized by al-Qaeda, or timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, officials said.

What we know up to now is that this was a well armed militia group with possible ties to al Qaeda, carrying out an opportunistic attack on the compound in response to protests in the region related to the anti-Islamic video. This was not planned far in advance, this was not planned by al Qaeda, and this was not timed to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. How important the video was to the motivation is still in flux. Exactly what role al Qaeda played if any in the attack is as well.

The trouble with the right's assessment of all this is the same as it's ever been. From day one they wanted to spin this to look like a massive failure by the president that could have and should have been prevented. They wanted to believe that the changing stories and early backtracking was a sign of lies and a coverup. None of this is supported by the available evidence but they refuse to admit that.

What we see instead is that we had a series of early conflicting reports and an administration that made statements based on available intelligence at the time or else made no clear statement due to the ongoing investigation. Some statements have been reversed later, and some haven't. There is no evidence of lies, and no evidence of coverup. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Posted by Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 3:41 PM
Comments
Comment #355388

Let me repost a very intelligent comment made by John Johnson:

“For all reasonable readers who read and post here:

Run for your lives. Do not read anyomore of Mr. Ducker’s threads. Do not be sucked into a debate with him. It is a total waste of time and effort. It is like trying to reason with a dog.

Oh…sorry, Bogie, I didn’t not mean to insult you like that.”

Posted by: John Johnson at October 25, 2012 4:48 PM

I agree with John Johnson, arguing this point with you is useless. Even Democrats know the WH was aware of everything that took place in Benghazi and while Americans were being killed, Obama slept; a lot different from the posted picture of Obama and his cabinet staring at a black screen (due to the loss of the signal) when Bin Laden was being killed.

AD, you views do not match the views of America.

Posted by: Frank at October 25, 2012 6:04 PM
Comment #355390

Here is a good talking point; at least much better than Bengahzi:

“Who Won the Debates? 49% Say Romney, 41% Obama”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/october_2012/who_won_the_debates_49_say_romney_41_obama

Of course, this is a Rasmussen Poll and some people think they are non-relevant.

Posted by: TomT at October 25, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #355393

Details are still not clear and may never be.

We know that a mob brought heavy weapons, wasted our consulate and killed an American Ambassador for the first time in more than 30 years. We have to go back to the time of Jimmy Carter to find something this bad.

If this had happened when Bush was president, what do you imagine the liberal media would say and write? If Bush said the same things Obama did would you believe him? If it was John Bolton instead of Susan Rice who made the statements on Sunday morning news reports, would the left be calling him a liar? When Bush depending on what turned out to be flawed intelligence, did you guys just let it go?

The test of fairness is substitution. If you can honestly say that you would hold similar opinions if these same facts applied to Bush, then you are a fair minded person.

The people to blame in these cases are the terrorists. These clowns have no right to turn to violence in defense of their phoney baloney “honor”. We should turn our wrath on them. We should not apologize to try to understand them any more than to the extent that we need to understand cockroaches in order to exterminate them.

Posted by: C&J at October 25, 2012 6:24 PM
Comment #355395

Adam wrote; “Also we know the State Department knew they wanted more security but it isn’t clear if it would have mattered.”

I will only address this sentence since it reveals a lot and seems a position you’re not certain about. The State Department knew they wanted more security…but didn’t provide it. Why?

Would more security have mattered? Yes, it would have confirmed that the State Department responded to an acknowledge threat rather than ignoring it. The question becomes again…why? Can you explain why our State Department would ignore requests for security in this troubled area?

There are many well security staffed embassies around the world that could have contributed assets easily in the days leading up to the murders without sacrificing their own security.

It is a given that the State Department knew of a threat and made the conscious decision not to act on it for reasons we don’t really understand.

How would the State Department improve their image by not responding? How would the president improve his image by having the State Department not respond?

Adam…can you think of any? I can.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 25, 2012 6:28 PM
Comment #355396

Justice to me would be for Hillary to resign and be named ambassador to Libya.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 25, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment #355399

Obama’s 5 point plan to blunt Romney’s plan.

1. Tax
2. Spend
3. Print
4. Regulate
5. Borrow

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 25, 2012 7:11 PM
Comment #355400

TomT: “Of course, this is a Rasmussen Poll and some people think they are non-relevant.”

I think Rasmussen polls are fine. There’s a reason so many conservatives like the polls though and it’s not accuracy. They lean Republican across the board. They’ve been accurate in the past elections and that gave them credibility but they fell short in the last election and they’ll probably fall short this one too.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 7:12 PM
Comment #355401

C&J: “If this had happened when Bush was president, what do you imagine the liberal media would say and write?”

We all stood together on 9/11. Republicans refuse to stand with Obama on any issue. The better question would be how fast Obama would be impeached for the intelligence failures that lead to 9/11. This question cuts both ways.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 7:14 PM
Comment #355402

Royal Flush: “Can you explain why our State Department would ignore requests for security in this troubled area?”

I don’t know that they ignored it. There has been some suggestion that the process was in motion before the attack. They just didn’t get it done in time. They made a mistake. Clinton and Obama have said so.

“Adam…can you think of any? I can.”

I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #355403

“I don’t know that they ignored it.” Ducker

You wrote the State Department “knew they wanted more security.” They had plenty of time and resources to provide more security and didn’t. I would call that “ignoring” or callous indifference or a political move. What would you call it?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 25, 2012 7:23 PM
Comment #355404

Adam

We all stood together on 9/11. That was a really big deal and I am sure in a similar situation people would rally to Obama.

Compare something of similar size. Did you guys cut Bush any slack?

Imagine a situation just like this one. What if it had happened in fall 2008?

The problem people have with Obama is not the intelligence failures. It is the spin.

Re Rasmussen - these polls have come very close to actual results. They really are the gold standard in polls.

Posted by: C&J at October 25, 2012 7:28 PM
Comment #355405

I don’t post on here very much any more. Usually I just read the posts and responses. Occasionaly though I read something that I can’t help responding to.

Adam, you have stated that you have never been in combat. It shows. It is possible that with added security, the ambassidor and the marines would still have been killed. It is also possible, and I would say probable that they would have survived the attack. At the time of the attack there was at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily, which is an hour away, several aircraft including an AC-130 gunship, also known as “Spooky” which could have given support and cover fire until ground forces could arrive.
You can google “Spooky” and watch some you tube videos to see it’s firepower.

To say that it’s not clear if added security would have made a difference is a cold and callous statement toward our brave forces who are by choice serving to protect your rights as an American citizen and their families.

I don’t like to talk much about the war, but I’ll relate one incident I was involved in in Viet Nam that applies.
At the time I was serving as an advisor with a Mobile Advisory Team. It was a team of 5 American soldiers assigned to advise a small group of Vietnamese soldiers. Our Vietnamese unit had about 20 ill trained and ill equipped soldiers. We were attacked by a company sized force of NVA regulars with the intent of over running our post. We held them off for about 30 minutes whild help came. Help was in the form of what we cald “Firefly”, which was a Huey helicopter with a searchlight in the door and 2 Cobra gunship helicopters equipped with mini-guns.
Although the didn’t have the firepower of “Spooky” they were enough to turn back the attack. After the dust setteled, we had one Vietnamese killed and one Vietnamese wounded. We found 12 bodies of NVA soldiers. With the overwhelming difference in firepower, we all would have been killed without the added security of “Firefly”.
Maybe added securty wouldn’t have saved those in Bengazi, but just maybe it would have, and I’ll bet that 9 out of 10 soldiers and veterans will agree with me.

I’ll go back to reading the posts and comments now.

Posted by: tdobson at October 25, 2012 7:31 PM
Comment #355407

tdobson, I am a veteran and I certainly agree. Thanks for relating your experience and thanks for your meaningful service to our nation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 25, 2012 7:36 PM
Comment #355408

And thank you for yours, Royal.
At times it seems the only thanks we get is from other Vets and service members.

Posted by: tdobson at October 25, 2012 7:40 PM
Comment #355409

tdobson, EXACTLY!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at October 25, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #355413

Royal Flush: “I would call that ‘ignoring’ or callous indifference or a political move.”

I can’t find the information I was looking for so I can’t prove what I was suggesting. Somewhere I saw an article saying that after turning down requests they had approved some additional security but hadn’t fully acted on it yet. That’s why I say it wasn’t completely ignored but there are budget constraints involved in the allocation of security resources.

It’s important to note that one thing we do know is the security requests weren’t all for Benghazi. They had requested five guards and that night they had five guards counting three for the compound and two that traveled with the ambassador.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 8:17 PM
Comment #355414

tdobson:

I thank you for your service too. I just lost a close friend who was a Marine in Vietnam. He was a hard headed, stubborn, hilarious, conservative, son of a gun.

My grandfather served state side in the Army Air Corps in World War II repairing airplanes but the war ended just before he was due to travel overseas. It was so long ago and such a short time that it didn’t define him as a man as much as some who have served. Then my father was drafted 1st round into Vietnam but couldn’t go because of high blood pressure. For me and my brother there was no strong pull toward military service and tradition like some families have. I went to college instead.

I agree with you for the most part. I’d rather them have had the security they wanted across the region and still have the deaths than to not have it. There is confusion over what resources were to be for Benghazi and as I say above they had the number of guards they requested on the night of the attack. This was 30 to 45 militants with multiple waves, rockets, and mortars. I do not have a strong knowledge of war or security but I get the sense that this would have been tough even meeting the security to the letter.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 25, 2012 8:27 PM
Comment #355417

tdobson, I am a veteran and can you say black hawk down. An AC-130 gunship was orbiting on that day and they were repeatedly denied clearance to shoot. I know I talk to the guys from that trip. I was stationed at Hurlburt Feild AFB from 1994-1997. What that aircraft can do is awesome. But this is a big one, they have to have permission to fire. That many civilians around, I don’t think they would have been allowed.

Posted by: timesend at October 25, 2012 8:35 PM
Comment #355418

Royal Flush,

You mock Obama’s plans. Fair enough. But, do you understand the cornerstone Romney’s economic plan, his proposed tax plan? If so, could you please explain it? I understand him to be proposing a large effective tax increase on higher incomes by eliminating deductions and giving those under $150,000 (married) a 20% reduction in their effective tax rate. Its kind of a sleight of hand in presentation but it results in a huge tax increase for those with joint incomes of over $150,000.00 but a tax decrease for lower incomes. The net result is revenue neutral. No impact on the deficit.

Now, Obama is a bit more straight forward. He is proposing to restore the Bush tax cuts for incomes over $250,000 and let them continue for those below. It is not revenue neutral resulting in some additional revenue.

So, what is the better plan?

Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2012 8:39 PM
Comment #355420

timesend The AC 130 specter is one bad-ass airplane. I worked for the company that built the radar for that plane along with combat talon and awads radar systems. We also built radar for the F5 test equipment for the F15 missile systems for the Tow and hellfire. But sadly all the work was sent to Mexico. That was in 1992 I stopped being a republican that same year.

Posted by: Jeff at October 25, 2012 9:07 PM
Comment #355434

The challenge of defending an embassy is that you are essentially defending a chunk of your sovereign territory in the midst of somebody else’s sovereign nation.

Too many conservatives deal with things in terms of what image they would LIKE to project, what message they would LIKE to send people. Is it simple to put troops in the midst of a foreign country, to have them shoot at people?

Now how about a C-130? Jesus wept. We’re not dealing with a walled compound, like the one in Iran, big enough to where we could fire the weapons on an aircraft like that safely. We’re talking an office building in the middle of Benghazi, a populated city.

Republicans want so much to wave a bigger stick about that they haven’t thought of what’s in the way of their swing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2012 12:15 AM
Comment #355440

tdobson says:

It is possible that with added security, the ambassidor and the marines would still have been killed. It is also possible, and I would say probable that they would have survived the attack.

tdobson concludes:

To say that it’s not clear if added security would have made a difference is a cold and callous statement toward our brave forces who are by choice serving to protect your rights as an American citizen and their families.

tdobson, by your own conclusion, and I agree with it, your statement in the first paragraph above is a cold and callous statement toward our brave forces who are by choice serving to protect your rights as an American citizen and their families. Just because you served you seem to think you have special privelege to make such cold and callous statements.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 26, 2012 8:45 AM
Comment #355441

By the way Adam, good post. You gave the community the opportunity to cite some evidence to back up the conspiracy claims they keep repeating and there was no response of substance. Nothing.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 26, 2012 8:52 AM
Comment #355443

You guys are acting as if the first priority of the Marines is to protect the Ambassador.

Actually, it’s not. The first priority of a Marine on guard duty at an embassy or consulate is to protect any secret documents or devices that might be on the property.

The staff, including the Ambassador, is secondary.

Look it up.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 26, 2012 9:17 AM
Comment #355445

Adam, I think the problem here is basic: a US Embassy was attacked and a US Ambassador was killed. That’s the real story here and it’s lost under a siege of party politics ahead of a Presidential election.

Did Romney play politics? No question and he did it halfcocked. But his statements quickly became the story and not the fact that our Ambassador was killed only because there are people reporting who want to see him fail.


Now it’s dripping out that the WH and the President’s campaign were also playing politics from the very beginning. It wasn’t by accident that the terrorism statement was planted in the early response, and probably CBS was complicit in just web posting their early story then bringing it up weeks later. When that came up in the debate Obama’s “check the record” response was in his hip pocket because it was a complete setup.

And that’s what I have problems with. The US was attacked on 9/11; an Ambassador, the ultimate representative to the U.S. overseas, was killed. That seems to be a side story for most. Romney played politics, but that pales in comparison to the White House and the President playing politics with such a tragic and possibly preventable event. This has been a really sad few weeks for our country and for this administration.

Posted by: George in SC at October 26, 2012 9:32 AM
Comment #355446

Schwamp:

From what I can tell there is no evidence, only spin. I keep waiting. I’ve changed my view on this multiple times since it happened based on new information and I admit when I’ve said things that are no longer supported. I don’t have a problem changing my view when the evidence changes.

Check the previous thread to watch Royal, KAP and John Johnson fall to pieces when I ask them to cite sources or explain themselves better. Opinion has it’s value but when your opinion counters actual verifiable information you need to have a little more to go on.

Now apparently John has sworn off engaging with me similar to the way he swore off engaging Stephen early on. Fine with me. He is free to comment or not. No one forces him to embarrass himself like he has done on this subject.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 9:33 AM
Comment #355447

George: “The US was attacked on 9/11; an Ambassador, the ultimate representative to the U.S. overseas, was killed. That seems to be a side story for most.”

The way I see it we have two choices. One, we can talk about nothing in respect to an ongoing investigation into the tragedy. Two, we can have a conversation about the hypocrisy and blatant lies of Republicans who have politicized this from hour one to hurt Obama and embarrassed only themselves in the process.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 9:40 AM
Comment #355457

The truth will always come out; and the attemps to defend Obama on this one will fizzle:

“Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQ0hPreM

Thank God for real investigative reporters seeking the truth.

Posted by: Frank at October 26, 2012 11:17 AM
Comment #355459

How a Real News Story Became the ‘Obama Watched Them Die’ Meme

Posted by: Adrienne at October 26, 2012 11:25 AM
Comment #355464

What Republican lies, Adam? We are talking about the Bengazi attack..aren’t we? Quote them, please.

One thing is clear after debating you for the last week or so. There is media bias, number one; and two, if you just read and listen to biased media, chances are you will be biased.

The only source that you quoted regarding the Bengazi attack was the New York Times, if I remember correctly. I don’t read the NYT’s, but I do watch MSNBC. What is obvious to me is that bias is shown, not so much in what is written or said, but by what is omitted and not reported. Last week, the NYT’s did not run a story about the discovered State Department emails for days after they were released by FOX News….nor did MSNBC. You could read or hear about the goofy Republican Senate hopeful in Indiana making a controversial remark about rape and abortion during this period (three pieces in the NYT’s in as many days, and hourly on MSNBC), but nary a word on emails proving that the Obama administration people knew during the attack that it was being reported by their sources that it was terrorist backed. There was not one word in any of them about a video.

The fact that a CIA spokesman stated it was a planned terrorist attack, was repremanded for doing so, and had the statement retracted wasn’t reported by these two either…
nor was the fact that Ambassador Steven’s plead for added security in the hours prior to his death…nor was the warning issued by the Libyan foreign minister to our State Department that an attack was imminent.

Foreign news sources were broadcasting this info early on, but not the NYT’s or MSNBC.

Since people like Adam, have narrowed their input to reading and listening and believing only news entities with the same political slant they subscribe to, is it any wonder that the Adam’s of this country have a narrow, slanted view any particular event.

There is a reason that more people watch Bill O’Reilly than any other news source. He is a pompous, egotistical, blowhard, but his program offers up both sides of any given issue and he begs those with differing opinons to come on the air and state them. Compare him to Chris Matthews or Lawrence O’Donnell, or Ed Schultz, or Rachel Maddow. They had on-air breakdowns after Obama’s miserable 1st debate performance. It was pathetic…and revealing.

So was the position Adam took on the prior thread.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 11:40 AM
Comment #355474

John Johnson: “What Republican lies, Adam?”

Issa lied in congress when he said:

Speaking of video, the one in California made by an individual and out there for a period of time also clearly had no direct effect on this attack. In fact, it was September 11th, the 11th anniversary of the greatest terrorist attack in U.S. history and the — New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon. It was that anniversary that caused an organization aligned with al-Qaida to attack and kill our personnel.

That this video played no role, that this was 9/11 instead, is not supported by facts. In fact the opposite is supported, but that doesn’t count for you because it’s the reporting of the NY Times and they hold no value for you. Do you have any evidence that this was not the video and that this was tied to 9/11? Anything at all?

Furthermore, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh called this a coverup. What was covered up exactly?

“Last week, the NYT’s did not run a story about the discovered State Department emails for days after they were released by FOX News….nor did MSNBC”

Reuters broke the story on the evening of the 23rd. I can’t vouch for MSNBC, but the NY Times ran with the story on the 24th just like Fox News and CNN though it didn’t make it into the print edition until the 25th according to their notes.

“There was not one word in any of them about a video.”

Unless you’ve seen emails I haven’t, there is not one word about motive, period. They’re very short. We know this wasn’t protesters. But that doesn’t say anything about the motive of the militants.

“…proving that the Obama administration people knew during the attack that it was being reported by their sources that it was terrorist backed.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what the emails prove is they knew a group took credit for it. That doesn’t mean the group did it as you may no from past events like this. In fact, those claims are doubtful at this point since no record can be found of them claiming responsibility and the group itself denies it.

“The fact that a CIA spokesman stated it was a planned terrorist attack, was repremanded for doing so, and had the statement retracted wasn’t reported by these two either…”

I assume you mean the Fox News reporting about Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center:

The White House, though, denied Olsen was reprimanded. … A national counterterrorism official told Fox News that Olsen also denied he was reprimanded for his statements.

We already know Republicans in Congress are lying about the events to hurt the president. I’d say an anonymous statement from Congressional sources made to a news source friendly to Republicans but which was denied by the person supposedly reprimanded doesn’t have much value.

You have no problems swallowing what Fox News feeds you but why question NY Times’ reporting on this? What is their motive to lie the very next day over what militants on the ground said?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 12:45 PM
Comment #355478

I will let fellow readers decide who has it right….you…or the rest of us. I am also no longer debating you, I am now just concentrating on pointing out to others the narrow, biased, eyes closed, ears covered position you have taken here, and will continue to do so down the road. I’m not going to let you get away with it.

New breaking news on the subject breaking as I write this. Tune into FOX News or you probably won’t hear or read it.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 1:03 PM
Comment #355481

John Johnson:

It should be clear to everyone here that your view of what happened in Libya is largely shaped by misinformation from Fox News and the liars in the Republican Party. So anyone else who’s view is shaped as well by that will no doubt agree with you.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 1:32 PM
Comment #355483

I agree John Johnson I heard the same thing this morning, help for the ambassador was denied, and the others were told to stand down. I hope this administration can’t live with it self after this attrocity. I can only hope Bill and Hillary come clean about what happened because if Hillary had any hope of running for any office she can forget it now.

Posted by: KAP at October 26, 2012 1:34 PM
Comment #355485

That isn’t breaking news but Fox News thinks it can recycle yesterday’s news with a few new details and a huge headline and continue operating at peak outrage.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 1:54 PM
Comment #355486

Tyrone Woods’ father’s words on Meygn Kelly’s program were as convicting and moving as any I ever remember hearing. I suggest all of you go find a way to listen to them. How fortunate are we to have brave men like Tyrone Woods protecting what is dear to us; how tragic that we have leaders calling the shots that are so inept, politically motivated, and uncaring that they could realtime watch all this, refuse to send in aircraft, lie about what transpired and head off to bed and on to a Las Vegas fundraiser before coming clean with the country about what had transpired.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 1:55 PM
Comment #355487

What “misinformation” is Fox spreading, AD? Are all Republicans “liars”?
The breaking news I am hearing is not “re-run”. What I am hearing is bordering on criminal. Wonder how Obama’s going to respond to these new charges?

Posted by: eyeswideopen at October 26, 2012 2:07 PM
Comment #355488

John Johnson:

What was it that Panetta said yesterday about Monday Morning Quarterbacking?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 2:09 PM
Comment #355489

eyeswideopen:

Fox News from the start has taken every tragic detail and decision and twisted it to fit an agenda not aimed at getting to the truth but at hurting the president. Most Republicans aren’t liars. I’m speakings specifically about Issa and others who have proceeded with their reviews of these events again not to get to the truth but to hurt the president. Fox News called this a cover up. These Republicans called it a coverup. Now they’re running the statements of Wood’s father who clearly is upset and politicizing this whole thing even more. It’s pathetic what the right has done on this.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 2:14 PM
Comment #355490

“We’re talking an office building in the middle of Benghazi, a populated city.”

I have seen and visited five of our embassies in Europe. They are all located in the middle of large cities. They are all well protected by American personnel.

Without even doing an internet search I am going to make a wild guess and write that nearly all of our embassies are located in large cities. One doesn’t have to be too bright to understand why that is.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 26, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #355494

It has turned into a cover-up Mr. Excuse Maker. If the admin. Had come clean on all details as they knew them then it would not be a cover up. See how it works.

As for Mr. Woods’ words live on Megyn Kelly’s program….nary a word was uttered about cover up. In fact, nothing was said. She just let the words speak for themselves. They do, however, have political ramifications. They only way they wouldn’t would be if they weren’t spoken.

Old adage, Adam. If you find yourself in a deep hole, quit digging. You are in an indefensible position. You continue to lie to yourself. Stand back…weigh all evidence… And try to be objective. The world will look different to you.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 3:31 PM
Comment #355498

RF,

“I have seen and visited five of our embassies in Europe.”

Other than the fact this was a “Consulate”, not an Embassy…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 26, 2012 4:14 PM
Comment #355499

I think that most of us (correctly) smell a cover up.

Posted by: Jacquelyn F Gerlach at October 26, 2012 4:17 PM
Comment #355501

I know what Panetta said yesterday. The question is “What is he going to say today?” To use the president’s words, Panetta’s explanation was bullshit. The security team had lasers pinpointing the position of the mortar inflicting most of the damage…the one that killed Woods. If the mere presence of F-16’s overhead didn’t scatter the rats, a laser guided missle would have.

Our special forces teams are also trained to enter the fray without all the questions answered. That’s what sets them apart. Observe, evaluate and react.

This is not Monday morning QB’ing, Adam. This is called getting to the truth.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #355503

John: “This is called getting to the truth.”

If that were true you and I would be in agreeement on a lot more of this.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 26, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #355506

Adam, You and most of the other liberals are so far up Obama’s A** you don’t know what truth is. To you what Obama and his left wing says is gospel debateing tou is a useless endevor. The Bible says “Believe a lie and be damned.” and your mesiah Obama has told a bunch.

Posted by: KAP at October 26, 2012 6:42 PM
Comment #355519

It is not the actual incident that is scandalous. It is the Obama coverup after.

Posted by: C&J at October 26, 2012 8:28 PM
Comment #355521

C&J…did you mean that? The incident is not scandalous ??? You mean repeated warnings by on the ground ambassador and foreign officials of eminent attack, a last hour plead for help, another three during the attack, failure to launch available aircraft, and the resulting desth of four brave men was not scandalous? I hope I am not reading you right. Please clarify.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 9:07 PM
Comment #355528

John

I do not believe president Obama would be responsible for such an incident. He would not and should not be making the detailed decisions involved with security in every country.

We may have had a systemic breakdown. But sometimes nobody is particularly responsible.

I was in Anbar province for a year during the surge. On a couple of occasions, I could have been killed or seriously injured. We managed risk and I was lucky. You take risks to do your job. Even if the risk is small, 1000 to 1, that means that in 1000 tries, the bad thing will happen once statistically. Had I been hurt or killed, it would not have been a scandal. It would not have been the fault of the president.

I think we need to understand risk for what it is and uncertainty for what it is. After a tragedy, it is easy to see what should have been done. It is much harder before.

I am not an Obama supporter. I don’t hold with his general policy. I think the cover up is a serious issue. But when I think of Obama’s options and knowledge before the event in question, I do not think he acted unreasonably.

I would also say that we know the result of the actions taken, but we don’t know what would have happened in different circumstances. I cut my president a little slack on these kinds of hard decisions, made always under time constraints and w/o perfect information.

Posted by: C&J at October 26, 2012 9:43 PM
Comment #355533

This from Factcheck

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Posted by: C&J at October 26, 2012 11:00 PM
Comment #355534

How do you compare your being in Anbar with what happened in Bengazi? We’re you ever in eminent danger, knew you were and asked for help and not get it? While you were in a firefight did you ask for help and not get it? Were the State Dept, CIA and WH personnel all monitoring your situation in realtime. Did anyone that high up ever make decisions about one of your encounters? We’re you ever charged with the protection of a general when you were denied available help? How about an Ambassador? You are screwy for even trying to compare where you were and what transpired two weeks ago. IMHO.

I’m not saying that O was the one calling the shots that afternoon. I never have. What I am saying is that he runs a slack ship. He doesn’t think that personally showing up for morning briefings so questions can be asked and clarifications sought is necessary. While Rome is burning, he heads off to Vegas. His Sec of State releases a scenario at a press conference which totally skews what transpired and two weeks later the true facts are still not all known. He says he is responsible for what plays out beneath him on the organizational chart. I take him at his word.

Shit happens when you plant people in foreign countries that have just gone through total upheaval, fought a war that displaced a dictator and left the survivors to determine a replacement. This being said, there is no excuse for four brave men dying the way they did on 9/11. The Ambassador should have been recalled when his British counterpart left. When he asked for more security the first time he should have received it. When the ex-SEAL Woods asked for air support it should have been forthcoming.

There are no excuses that can cover this ineptitude. Heads should roll, and I believe they will.


Posted by: John Johnson at October 26, 2012 11:08 PM
Comment #355540

John

I am talking about risk. There were times when I was in imminent danger. I almost had a crazy man stab me when I wasn’t paying attention and let a couple parked cars get between my Marines and me. We talked the guy down and the crowd didn’t go wild, but it might have. Who would have been blamed for that? It was mostly my fault; I was intent on what I was and not paying enough attention to the surroundings, but on the other hand I was trying to do my job. What looks very stupid from a safe distance doesn’t seem that way close up.

We were indeed planted in a dangerous place. One of our jobs was “tribal engagement”, which meant going into tribal compounds to talk with local leaders. We would take off our armor and talk. In a couple week period, bombers killed several of our colleagues in two very similar situations. I made the hardest decision of my life when I told my guys that we were going to continue to engage because that was our job. We all made it safely home, but I still think of that decision. It was bold because it worked. It would have been called rash or stupid if it had worked out differently. We cannot have perfect security.

I find myself in the unusual position of defending Obama. I am sure mistakes were made. I think we should investigate and find out the details. But there is a lot of fog and friction in these things. Things will happen that even when all the decisions made are reasonable.

We should be very careful and try not to use our conflicts with foreign enemies for domestic political advantage.

Posted by: C&J at October 26, 2012 11:49 PM
Comment #355542

Jack, The biggest mistake was is not recalling our ambassador when they knew they were in danger as did the British, Heck even the Red Cross left. IMO this president knows more than is being told and most of it would cause him a whole lot of troubl and I think a lot of people are covering his A** to their own detrament. Hillary for one will never be able to run for office again.

Posted by: KAP at October 27, 2012 12:14 AM
Comment #355544

C&J:

That’s a good article from FactCheck. I hadn’t seen that yet.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 27, 2012 8:43 AM
Comment #355545
The way I see it we have two choices. One, we can talk about nothing in respect to an ongoing investigation into the tragedy. Two, we can have a conversation about the hypocrisy and blatant lies of Republicans who have politicized this from hour one to hurt Obama and embarrassed only themselves in the process.

Two problems with your vision Adam: 1. You don’t get weeks to “respect and ongoing investigation” when you’ve been attacked. 2. Your hypocrisy and blatant lies statement is partisan as it is crystal clear that not only did the President’s campaign play politics but so did his Administration. Of the three, Republicans, The Obama campaign, or the Administration, which one most deserves the conversation?

Posted by: george at October 27, 2012 9:24 AM
Comment #355555

George…you are wasting your time trying to save Adam. He is one of those you find on both the far, far left and far, far right. A team of horses could not get them moving toward the center. They are blind to the obvious and incapable of any form of objective deductive reasoning.

This Bengazi situation does have political ramifications, but the brouhaha is not being driven by one group’s hate of Obama. I can’t imagine any civil, reasonable citizen, regardless of their political persuasion, not being outraged by what they are reading and watching. I have no idea what political party the four brave dead belonged to; I just know they died seeking help that someone did not afford them, and the excuses for not doing so, thus far, have been lame.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 27, 2012 2:28 PM
Comment #355557

John Johnson: “He is one of those you find on both the far, far left and far, far right. A team of horses could not get them moving toward the center.”

I’m very liberal on some things and a little conservative on others. Don’t pretend you know me just because you and I don’t agree on the subject of Libya and a few other topics of the day.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 27, 2012 3:30 PM
Comment #355562

Yeah, right.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 27, 2012 5:07 PM
Comment #355585

The only constant here is that John Johnson has been consistently wrong and hatefully partisan in his assessment of the attacks. Nearly every thing he has parroted from Fox News and other right wing sources has fallen apart under actual reality.

Condoleezza Rice counters the Monday Morning Quarterbacking by folks like John Johnson:

“It is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what’s going on as it’s unfolding,” she said in an interview with Fox’s Greta Van Susteren. “There are protocols in place, I have no reason to believe they weren’t followed, but it is not very easy in circumstances like this to know precisely what’s going on as it’s unfolding.”

The smoking gun emails start to fall apart:

“Based on the original reaction from Katibat Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi (ASB), the language would suggest that the attack was not planned by the senior leadership, but rather members in an individual capacity were involved,” Zelin told The Cable in an email. “Further, because this video statement was not posted until 7AM EST on the 12th on ASB’s official Facebook page and Twitter account, it calls into question the leaked emails, which stated there was a statement claiming responsibility the night of the attack. It is possible staffers were mistaken in the heat of the moment. Not only was there no statement from ASB until the following morning, but it did not claim responsibility.”

Olsen: I was not reprimanded for calling Benghazi a terrorist attack:

Fox News reported Wednesday that Olsen was “reprimanded” and told to “tone it down” after his testimony, attributing that information to “congressional sources.” Today, in a statement emailed to The Cable, Olsen said that’s simply not true.

“These claims are completely false. My comments were entirely consistent with the intelligence available at the time. I received nothing but positive feedback following my testimony,” Olsen said. “To suggest that something as important as open testimony regarding the circumstances in which four Americans loss their lives, was not fully coordinated with the Executive Branch and other government agencies, is nonsense.”

We’ll know the truth eventually about all these things and if what we know now stands up it will have very little in common with what John Johnson thinks happened. He’ll call it a coverup anyway though, because that’s how it all works. It’s a conspiracy! Everything! Fox News tells him so.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 28, 2012 9:57 AM
Comment #355587

Excellent article from Factcheck on the situation:

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.

Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.

Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 28, 2012 10:47 AM
Comment #355588

What we saw was the administration speaking on behalf of the intelligence they had at the time. The suggestion by some on the right that the changing view of what happened implies the administration somehow knew the truth early on and simply lied for political reasons isn’t supported.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 28, 2012 11:21 AM
Comment #355598

Like cats in a sandbox, the administration and apologists like Adam diligently work to cover up their mess.

If you want to, forget about the video…forget about who was carrying the weapons. Just address the four lives lost and the reasons given thus far for (a) not removing the ambassador after the attack on the British ambassador, (b) not heeding the warning from the Libyan minister that an attack was eminent, (c) not fulfilling the acting head of security’s request that he and his “platoon” of men be allowed to stay in light of his evaluation of the situation in Bengazi, (d ) Tyrone Woods’ being told to stand down, (e) Tyrone Woods’ request for a C130 to be sent to the scene to lock onto his laser and take out the terrorists motar.

These questions are far more important than who said what after the fact about who the killers were. We’ll see. All I know is that something stinks and if Ad can’t smell it, it is only because he is holding his nose.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 28, 2012 5:04 PM
Comment #355613

Through them and playing cricket for Woodcote, he took on David Pantin, a superb carpenter who also became his foreman and the favorite cheap north face jackets with good quality a friend for life, My father genuinely liked and appreciated his workmen, very often working alongside them, and he was always generous to them. Through them and playing cricket for Woodcote, he took on David Pantin, a superb carpenter who also became his foreman and a friend for life, My father genuinely the authorized north face clearance really wonderful liked and appreciated his workmen, very often working alongside them, and he was always generous to them.

Posted by: cheap north face jackets at October 29, 2012 2:48 AM
Comment #355624

John Johnson:

Mistakes were made, and both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have admitted so. The extent of those mistakes and what could have been corrected is being investigated. You’re still Monday Morning Quarterbacking this to match your own political views so you’ll have a reason to smear the president.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 8:24 AM
Comment #355626

Hey, we agree! I am analyzing and criticizing after the fact. I am basing my opinions on personal interviews with people who were there, and hard copies of emails that are are dated and timed which show who was getting realtime info and what that info was.

It has been almost three weeks since the tragedy and information has not been forthcoming because of the election… so it is political. Repubs are scratching and digging because it is political. Why wouldn’t it be, Adam? How could it not be?

There obviously weren’t that many people involved so how long should it take to get to the bottom of this if not for stonewalling? Can you say “Fast and Furious”?

Your excuses are lame. Your reasoning is lame. Open your eyes. You are looking like a naive, ignorant, lemming.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 29, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment #355627
What we saw was the administration speaking on behalf of the intelligence they had at the time. The suggestion by some on the right that the changing view of what happened implies the administration somehow knew the truth early on and simply lied for political reasons isn’t supported.

Sorry, but the facts do not track with your assertion, no matter what opinion piece you want to link to to back up your views.

It was very clear as Factcheck shows in their timeline that the administration and the world was already coming to understand that the attacks weren’t a result of any demonstrations when the administration, including the President himself, went on TV and still asserted that it was.

And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

Why this happened is speculation, no one knows atm. But to suggest somehow that it just didn’t happen that way is ridiculous.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 29, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment #355631

John Johnson: “Your excuses are lame. Your reasoning is lame. Open your eyes. You are looking like a naive, ignorant, lemming.”

Personal attacks don’t make you any less wrong, John.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 10:00 AM
Comment #355633

Rhinehold: “Why this happened is speculation, no one knows atm. But to suggest somehow that it just didn’t happen that way is ridiculous.”

I don’t think I’m trying to suggest at all there weren’t conflicting statements, and that they weren’t slow to clearly declare it one thing or another. I just think that reflects the early confusion of the events. Once it became clear that they were misspeaking by going public with early details they started to shift toward making minimal assertions about it while reminding folks of the uncertainty and the ongoing investigation. My point was simply that when they did misspeak there is no evidence that they said one thing while knowing it was false. That may change later but until then the right is pathetically wrong in doing so.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 10:11 AM
Comment #355634

Adam, Your right mistakes were made, but the worst one was letting 4 people get killed. The State Dept and the President should have taken the warnings and the lead of the British and Red Cross and recalled our Ambassador. Now we have 4 dead and an administration that is stonewalling and feeding everyone BS.

Posted by: KAP at October 29, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #355642

Just calling ‘um like I see ‘um, Adam, as you continue on with your excuses and blind observations.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 29, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment #355645

KAP: “Your right mistakes were made, but the worst one was letting 4 people get killed.”

The idea that anyone just “let” four people get killed is a lie built up by those who after the fact think everything should have been clear as day and preventable and done 100% right or else everyone should resign in shame.

John Johnson: “…as you continue on with your excuses and blind observations.”

I’m sorry that the facts don’t agree with your opinion and that you take that personally.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #355653

Keep thinking that Adam, help was denied, they let the Ambassador stay there when they knew trouble was in the air instead of recalling him as did the British. So keep on defending this administration the truth will come out and so far it dosen’t look to good for Obama when it does come out.

Posted by: KAP at October 29, 2012 12:25 PM
Comment #355655

KAP:

If the truth ever changes to match the right wing lies I’ll be the first to say so. Until then they remain lies.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 12:32 PM
Comment #355663

OK, Adam. The Lt. Col. who was in charge of Steven’s security is lying? The emails are fabricated lies? The attack on the British ambassador was faked? Your credibility is sinking lower and lower. You are one of “those”, my boy. Lost in your own little world.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 29, 2012 1:22 PM
Comment #355664

Adam, You will never accept the truth, your denial of facts and evidence is remarkable. At one time I thought you to be an intellegent person now just another liberal hack who is protecting your Mesiah Obama.

Posted by: KAP at October 29, 2012 1:43 PM
Comment #355671

John:

The facts don’t lie. It’s just that Republicans have taken those facts and twisted them to present a story that is a lie. Obviously you believe that lie to the bitter end and every new piece of information that comes out solidifies it. So tell me again what it is about the emails that are damning? Tell me what Shaffer said that is damning?

Obviously you’re a very keen judge of my credibility, John. I’d like you to give me a weekly report on the status of my credibility.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 2:22 PM
Comment #355672

KAP: “At one time I thought you to be an intellegent person now just another liberal hack who is protecting your Mesiah Obama.”

Sorry to disappoint.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 2:25 PM
Comment #355713

I don’t have to monitor you weekly, Adam. You are not going to change. It could be yearly, or once each decade. You are infected. It’s not curable. Many on the other side of the equation have the same disease. As I’ve said before, you and your threads are a waste of time. I just like pricking you, knowing that you will continue to post and show how myopic and biased you are. Your way left buddies don’t even show support anymore.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 29, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #355735

John: ” I just like pricking you, knowing that you will continue to post and show how myopic and biased you are.”

I am the puppet to your puppet mastery.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 29, 2012 11:36 PM
Comment #355768

Yes, exactly….not much work, really, because you are so predictable. “Obama good, Romney bad”. “That’s a lie”. “Wait until the truth is uncovered”. “There is no proof”.

How long do you think it will take, Adam? Sometime just after Tuesday, the 6th?

Posted by: John Johnson at October 30, 2012 9:44 AM
Comment #355789
Your way left buddies don’t even show support anymore

Although I have commitments that prevent me from commenting here more frequently, I would like to say that Adam has done an admirable job defending the truth against the onslaught of right-wing attacks. He certainly has my support.

Despite the existence of certain emails or comments from various anonymous sources, the right wing has not established any facts that actually support their claims that Obama acted in a way that was either malicious or grossly negligent to American interests.

The fact of the matter is that the provocative video sparked demonstrations throughout the Muslim World on that day and many of those protests degenerated into violence against symbols of America’s power in those places, most notably our embassies and consulates. Many of those violent upheavals were coordinated by organizations unfriendly to American interests, and it remains likely that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was at least partially a response to the provocative video.

There is no indication that Obama or his top advisors were able to receive an accurate story in real time as alleged by conservative media. Those emails only indicate that the White House was informed that Ansar al-Shariah claimed responsibility, but there is no indication as to whether they were telling the truth or not. And the informant in the Fox News story regarding denied claims for back up remain anonymous and unverified while the DoD claims otherwise.

Also, I think we all must keep in mind that this attack occurred in an urban setting. Today, most Benghazi civilians have pro-American outlooks due in part to our role in preventing Gadiaffi’s forces from reconquering Cyrenaica in 2011. Some interventions may have put too many Libyan civilians at risk and/or may have put Stevens at risk due to friendly fire.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 30, 2012 3:24 PM
Comment #355790

Warped Reality:

Better watch out. John Johnson will be all over you like he’s all over me. I can’t get away with anything anymore with him around! I am putty in his hands!

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 30, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #355792

We’re not talking about Obama, WR. We’re talking about the people who work for him. You can jump on the denial wagon with him. Should be plenty of room cause most Americans are objective enough to know that this whole deal was a total screw up.

Are you Adam’s roommate?

Posted by: John Johnson at October 30, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #355793

Another thing, WR, have you watched anything on the tube about the attack? Have you seen where the compound was and how it was laid out? Seen how many acres it encompassed? You couldn’t have or you would know that it was not in an “urban” high rise area. Any more excuses you can come up with? Between the two of you, you’ve manufactured quite a few.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 30, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #355795

WR,
Google AC-130 and read about it’s capabilitys. You could damn near rabbit hunt with it, it is so accurate.

Posted by: tdobson at October 30, 2012 4:48 PM
Comment #355797

John Johnson: “Are you Adam’s roommate?”

I knew it wouldn’t work, Warped Reality. He’s on to us!

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 30, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #355808

Nope. You’ve got it wrong. You two are on to each other. I’m not “on to” anything having to do with you.

Posted by: John Johnson at October 30, 2012 7:07 PM
Comment #355810

John Johnson:

That’s not what I heard.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at October 30, 2012 7:41 PM
Comment #355843

What, then, are the characteristics that make an MSA likely to spawn successful neologisms? It’s well established that Coach Outlet Twitter has a higher rate of adoption among African Americans than other ethnic groups, and so it perhaps isn’t Coach Outlet surprising that they now find that innovation centres, as well as being highly populated, have a higher proportion of Coach Outlet African Americans, and that similarity of racial demographic can make two urban centres more likely to be linked Coach Outlet in the influence network. There is a long history of adoption of African American slang (cool, dig, rip off) in mainstream Coach Outlet Online US culture, so these findings agree with what we might expect.Not only has he been sacked, but he now risks losing his Coach Factory Online home as well, situated almost next door to his former workplace, the Papal apartments on the top floor of the Coach Outlet Online Apostolic Palace.The Gendarmerie explained that this was done to prevent Gabriele from harming himself, Coach Outlet and that he himself had asked for the light to be left on at night and was given a sleeping mask.

Posted by: Coach Outlet at October 31, 2012 4:00 AM
Comment #355959
We’re not talking about Obama, WR. We’re talking about the people who work for him.

Thank you for the clarification. So who in particular are we talking about? From what I know, the other key persons are Secretary Clinton, David Petraeus and Leon Panetta as well as their immediate subordinates.

Are you Adam’s roommate?
No, the closest I’ve ever been to Arkansas has either been when I visited Chicago, Colorado, Florida or West Virginia. You can either choose to believe this or to disbelieve it, but I am not a new commenter. I used to contribute very regularly up until last Spring. In fact, I commented here even before Adam began writing here, which can be verified in the Watchblog archives.
have you watched anything on the tube about the attack
I do not own a television, but I do find other ways to stay informed. Mostly through the internet, but I occasionally read the New York Times print edition.
Have you seen where the compound was and how it was laid out? Seen how many acres it encompassed? You couldn’t have or you would know that it was not in an “urban” high rise area.

Actually you do have a point here. I hastily made assumptions based on what I know about consulates that I have encountered in other places, but I’ll concede that the reality of the situation is not what I assumed it to be . It appears the consulate is at the edge of the urbanized area rather than at the center.

Google AC-130 and read about it’s capabilitys. You could damn near rabbit hunt with it, it is so accurate.
I do not have combat experience, nor have I seen this aircraft in action, so I cannot judge your assertion. I agree that any investigation of what happened should consider whether these gunships might have been able to assist Stevens & the SEALs. I guess these are questions that need to be answered: Who had the authority to dispatch the aircraft? Did this individual have accurate and up-to-date intelligence of what was happening? And if so, what were the reasons for not utilizing the aircraft? In any case, there are too many unanswered questions to draw any firm conclusions.

It’s probably true that I’m giving Obama and his subordinates the benefit of the doubt in part due to my political affiliations and you are unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt for the exact same reason. But that cannot be helped very easily as long as there are so many unanswered questions. In any case, I trust that a full investigation will be conducted. If Obama and his officials fail to be candid and forthcoming, then I trust that Issa will force them to be.

Nevertheless, I have not yet seen any evidence that proves that there was any gross negligence or maliciousness. Such evidence may manifest itself at a later time, but so far you have nothing to prove your accusations. You might be right, but only time will tell. I think the evidence you are looking for will never appear because I trust my government to do the right thing. I’m only 23 years old, so I know that I am naive and gullible, but I believe that it is a privilege of my youth to be idealistic. I’ll have plenty of time when I’m older to be more cynical as most of my elders are.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 31, 2012 1:36 PM
Comment #355974

WR,
I respect your youth and innocence. In some ways I wish I were still that way.
Let’s get to your questions: Who had the authority to dispatch the aircraft? Certainly the Commander in chief has that authority. Did this individual have accurate and up-to-date intelligence of what was happening? As I understand it, there was a direct feed to the situation room at the white house that showed a live video stream of the attack, so someone in the white house should have had accurate and current information on what was happening. As to why the aircraft were not used, that is what we are asking.
Maybe it’s my old and jaded view of things and I will admit to a right leaning bias, but it’s been over 6 weeks since the attack. I think the Obama administration is stalling the investigation until after the election.

Posted by: tdobson at October 31, 2012 4:07 PM
Comment #355989
Who had the authority to dispatch the aircraft? Certainly the Commander in chief has that authority. Did this individual have accurate and up-to-date intelligence of what was happening? As I understand it, there was a direct feed to the situation room at the white house that showed a live video stream of the attack, so someone in the white house should have had accurate and current information on what was happening.

Thank you for your response. I have a few comments:

Yes, the President has the authority, but the Commander-in-Chief’s role is strategic and not tactical. He is the one who presents us with an overarching worldview and mission, but shouldn’t be calling the shots on a day to day basis except in extraordinary circumstances (such as the OBL raid). I’ll grant you that an attack on our consulate is certainly an extraordinary circumstance, but the difference here is that while the OBL raid was pre-planned and proactive, the attack in Benghazi was a surprise and our forces were forced to be reactive. My suspicion is that it was a subordinate who was calling the shots, especially during the initial few hours. We do not know that much regarding who knew what and when they learned it. So we do not know if the relevant person had the authority to dispatch assets based in Sicily. As I said before, I have not served in our armed forces, so my understanding of their bureaucracy is weak, so I might be wrong here, but could there have been a problem because Libya is under the jurisdiction of AFRICOM whereas the Sigonella Airfield is under a different jurisdiction?

As to why the aircraft were not used, that is what we are asking. Maybe it’s my old and jaded view of things and I will admit to a right leaning bias, but it’s been over 6 weeks since the attack. I think the Obama administration is stalling the investigation until after the election.
It is legitimate to ask why the aircraft weren’t used. I am sure the answer will come out eventually, but in order for this investigation to be thorough, it will undoubtedly take more than 6-8 weeks. I think this is especially true considering the fact that the “best intelligence” available one week after the attack seemed to place more blame on the provocative video than it deserved and less blame on the local terrorist groups. In any case, with patience the truth will set us free. I acknowledge that it is awkward to have to wait until after the election, but that is the only way to make sure things are done properly.

In closing, I’d like to share a convenient article from the National Journal that outlines what we know and what we don’t know.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 31, 2012 5:33 PM
Comment #359353

goldson will sign with 49ers. but timing is key

However, if new head coach Joe Philbin gets off on the wrong foot and the Dolphins are out of the playoffs early, the team could be tempted to see how Tannehill learns on the job. He was cheap new nike nfl jerseys basically thrown into the fire at Texas A&M as a junior and responded very well, winning his first five starts. It’s not impossible that we would see Tannehill this season! but it would mean the Dolphins had probably given up on making the playoffs in 2012.

Posted by: dian at December 24, 2012 3:02 AM
Post a comment