Republicans & Allies Offer Bogus Criticism On Libyan Consulate Incident!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JimofPennsylvan, Oct 19, 2012.

  1. JimofPennsylvan
    Offline

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Thanks Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +83
    It is outrageous how the Republicans and their allies have politicized the incident of the deaths of four Americans at the consulate in Libya. They keep trying to turn this into a Watergate or Iran-Contra type of scandal, a scandal that can put the survival of a presidential administration in jeopardy and the circumstances surrounding the matter don't support this. Let's look at this whole Benghazi consulate matter in a fair manner. First, let's look at it from a standpoint most favorable to the Republicans which would be that top officials in the White House or the State Department or the Nation's Intelligence Services knew with certainty that a heavily armed group was going to attack the Benghazi consulate and did nothing, didn't send the marines or special forces to protect the consulate, didn't warn the consulate or didn't take steps to evacuate the consulate; does any reasonable person really think that was the case for that to be true they would have deliberately and with premeditation intend Americans to die in Benghazi, that is a crazy, disturbed belief what motive would they have for such acts. Which leaves the only other explanation of what happened here which is that maybe some level of America's intelligence services knew at some confidence level of some militant threat in Libya, possibly some idea of the threat target, some intelligence information of this sort probably went up the authority chain of the intelligence service and possibly was shared with authorities in the state department and the White House. Further, there is the issues of the general security threat level in Libya and how secure were the embassy and consulates from such generalized threats. The only possibly legitimate explanation of what happened should cause a reasonable person to conclude that this whole situation is not about deriliction of duty or criminal malfeasance as the Republicans want the American public to believe it is about a deficient and a broken system in our nation's intelligence and state department apparatus and it is about identifying these problems and fixing them. The normal mechanisms that the government uses to fix these problems like the state department investigation and congressional committee investigations need to run their course and do this corrective work and certain Americans need to stop using these investigations and their incomplete findings as a political wedge because it is illegitimate to do so. The people running these investigation should do them right get written statements from all the critical people and follow them up with written questions getting written answers and everything should be full synthesized so readers of the report no exactly and fully what happened. These reports need to be done right so this matter can be closed and the country move on!

    The investigations will at worse produce findings that our nation's intelligences services and the state department security performance was poor on this Libyan matter which in a general sense means the Democrat President's administration's poor performance led to the death of these four Americans. This in no way however means this matter holds major bearing or is dispositive whether Barack Obama can handle or do the job as President. For many Presidents including Republican Presidents had their administrations make such performance lapses. President George W. Bush's Administration has an abundance of them. American soldiers in Iraq during the Bush Presidency were getting crippled and killed in alarming numbers due to improvised explosive devices planted in roads. The Bush administration made a huge error in responding to this IED threat in their slow timetable of getting private contractors to weld protective metal plates to the military Humvees and an even bigger one in their snails pace movement in getting the MRAP vehicle program approved at large scale which offered dramatically better IED protection than plated vehicles these errors cost hundreds of American soldiers to either needlessly lose their life or incur serious wounds, talk about American lives lost Republicans you should hold your tongues. Further, what about the Bush Administration's bad decision to disband the Iraq army shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the consensus amongst analysts is that because there was not jobs available for these Iraqi soldiers this led them in large numbers to turn to and join the militant movements in Iraq which ended up killing many American soldiers, what about this Republicans? And even on the smaller scale, in July of 2008 the military leadership of the Bush Administration due to errors in judgment was responsible for the deaths of nine and the wounding of 27 U.S. and Afghanistan soldiers at the village of Wanat in the mountains of northeast Afghanistan, the military leadership chose low ground to locate the outpost, failed to provide the resources to adequately fortify the outpost and failed to adequately respond to the build up of enemy forces around the outpost and the esteemed General David Petraeus has agreed with this assessment, Republicans you want to say what!


    This leads one to question the Republicans on their continued accusations against President Obama's White House that they are misleading or not telling the truth to the American people about this whole Libyan consulate matter. What would be the purpose what would be the end of such efforts. Four Americans died in the matter the U.S. Ambassador to the country died in the matter of course something was done wrong, of course mistakes were made by the Administration. There is no reason for a cover-up, it wasn't like Watergate or Iran-Contra where there was a question on the White House's connection to the wrong doing when a U.S. consulate is overrun and four of its occupants are killed it is clear the White House is connected for the White House is ultimately responsible for security there. The Republicans and their allies are so nonsensical in their accusations of misleading, they say the reason why the White House is misleading because the White House doesn't want the American people to know that the deaths at the consulate had a linkage to al qaeda(supposedly al qaeda called for Libyan militants that share al qaeda's islamic extremist views to avenge the death of one of their key leaders who was Libyan at the hands of the CIA) because per these Republicans President Obama's White House is making the claim during this election season that the Obama White House has dramatically weakened al qaeda to the extent that the American people no longer have to worry about the al qaeda terrorist threat and if al qaeda had a hand in the Libyan consulate attack this claim is shown to be without merit. These Republicans and their allies are wacky, the American public knows that al qaeda has its tentacles extensively around the world they know it is connected to groups in Syria fighting Assad that is why the American government and other pro-democracy government have reservations about arming the Syrian rebels because the arms might fall into the hand of these al qaeda affiliates, the American people hear almost on a weekly basis of bombings in Iraq caused by the "al qaeda in Iraq" organization and it is common knowledge in America that al qaeda has a significant presence in western Pakistan from which it plays an integral role in the militant movements fighting the Afghanistan and Nato forces in Afghanistan. These evident realities make this "hide the danger of al qaeda" motive laughable what are you Republicans so desperate politically that you have to resort to nonsense!


    Republicans and their allies have heaped heavy criticism on the Obama Administration for the Administrations statements essentially saying that the militant assault on the consulate was something that morphed out of that You-Tube video mocking Mohammed and not saying that it was clearly a terrorrist attack. Since the September 11 consulate attack it has become pretty much widely accepted that the "Islamic extremist" Libyan militia group "Ansar al-Shariah" was to a major degree the group that actually conducted the assault on the consulate. So therefore if one is to tell the truth one has to say that a terrorist group conducted the assault; however, one cannot say that the You-tube video didn't play a part in causing this assault. There is a legal term called "proximate cause" which means that something is a cause of an an outcome if one can say that "but for" that factor the outcome would not have happened; an example is that if there was a medication that caused pancreatic cancer and a person was in actually terrible health and would have probably died around the same time he actually died and his death was cause from pancreas failure due to pancreatic cancer and that person had been using the medication in question a long time then the medication was the "proximate cause" of the persons death because but for the pancreas failure the person wouldn't have died at that precise time. The point here is that unless the Republicans and their allies have proof that the leader or leaders of this Islamic extremist group "Ansar al-Shariah" were planning to storm the Libyan consulate on 9/11 with machine guns, rocket propelled grenades and mortars even if there was no You-Tube video protest than the "You-Tube video" is the proximate cause of that deadly assault which makes the Obama administration officials remarks on the matter around the time of the incident not out-of-line and not untruthful! Just a little tidbit, the New York Times reported that the commonly believed leader of this Ansar al-shariah group is a man called Ahmed Abu Khattala and the NYT reports he says the group's 9-11 assault on the consulate rose out of the controversy of the "You-Tube" video, I guess the Republicans could say Ahmed's political affiliation is Democrat so his remarks should be dismissed but I don't think the American people will find that persuasive!


    Much has been made by the Republicans and their allies of the facts that State Department personnel in Libya asked for more security shortly before the 9-11 assault. In hindsight their concerns should have been given greater weight and responded to in a better fashion but failure to give State Department sites in Libya significantly more security resources as a result of these request doesn't rise to the level of any dereliction of duty. From a reasonable persons standpoint the situation in Libya prior to the 9-11 assault was on a good trajectory the Libyan people held parlimentary elections in July of this year that went well the Parliment had chosen a Prime Minister the political situation in Libya was proceeding in a good manner. There was no factor that existed in Libya that clearly called for a dramatic addition of security resources for State Department facilities in Libya. State department officials that handled security were following the same policies that probably existed from the Bush administration is that let citizens from the country where the consulate and embassy is located handle security jobs it is probably a big cost savings approach to security. Another thing, even the state department person who was responsible for security at the Benghazi consulate and who made the additional request for secuirty said he wasn't sure that the marine contingent that was pulled as a security resource from the State Department in Libya prior to 9-11 could have repelled the militant force that assaulted the consulate on 9-11 because of the strength of that force, our Marines are great soldiers but could they have overcome a barrage of mortors that set the facility on fire, probably not! Another Republican criticism on this matter which is completely unreasonable is their criticism of why didn't the President and the Secretary of State have first person knowledge of all these security issues with the Benghazi consulate why weren't they hands on in these matters. Give me a break the President and the Secretary of State's responsibilities are so extensive and great that they don't have the time to spend on such detailed matters as that of security at an individual consulate, it is unfortunate that such issues can't receive such attention from top authorities but that is just reality. They are responsible for seeing that policy, procedures and systems are in place to provide adequate security for consulates and clearly these responsibilities now require that action be taken in these areas and they have communicated several times that they will do so!
     
  2. OKTexas
    Offline

    OKTexas New Life Member of the NRA 12/15 Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    24,006
    Thanks Received:
    3,741
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Near Magnolia, TX
    Ratings:
    +11,175
    I'm going to say this in as kind a manner as I can.

    YOUR FULL OF SHTI!!!!!

    When you have an ambasador and his security team begging for help and they are repeatedly denied for purly political reasons and that results in their deaths, that is daraliction of duty and a clear indication of incompetence. The country needs to be aware before they decide to put an incompetent fool back in office for another four years. The State Dept has already admitted these facts in sworn testimony so there is no jumping to judgement here. This is just one more reason to send these people packing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  3. Matthew
    Online

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,663
    Thanks Received:
    4,595
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,149
  4. Obamanation
    Offline

    Obamanation Silver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,857
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +245
    One question on this "ploiticizing" thing. Aren't these guys politicians? Don't they have to consider political ramifications of everything they say and do? Isn't it politics when the President goes into a debate, and lies to the American people in a weak attempt to cover his butt?

    This whole coverup deal makes Richard Nixon and watergate look like Saint-like!

    4 Americans died here, and Obama Bin Lyin' owes the people the truth. They need to start the impeachment process. Obama should have walked some guns to the American Consolate in Benghazi.
     
  5. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Someone needs to not Copy and Paste a whole article with no link.

    especially not silly shit like that.


    It's like someone was given an Assignment to right a fucking essay Explaining why Barrack Obama Remains the Only President in history not responsible for any of the bad that happens on his watch, but credited with all the good.
     
  6. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,170
    Thanks Received:
    14,904
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,909
    What "investigation"? The FBI still isn't allowed to go back to the crime scene
     
  7. Jackson
    Offline

    Jackson Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    19,636
    Thanks Received:
    4,872
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +12,676
    Jim....

    There were over 200 attacks on western targets in the general area of the consulate 6 months prior to the hit on 9/11. Two of them on the embassy itself. One assassination attempt on a diplomat going to the embassy. Repeated requests were made for more security but instead, the State Department took away what security they had.

    Charlene Lamb from the State Department was on the phone with victims who survived at the embassy during the 6 hours of the attack. What more of an investigation is needed. Intelligence did not go to the area for two weeks, yet CNN found it was safe enough to go in, find evidence including Seven's diary. What does that tell you of their investigation? Incompetence and delay.

    The CIA came out early, I believe it was the 14th calling it a premeditated terror attack without a riot, yet Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ambassador Rice and Jay Carney kept up the story of a riot caused by a video sent out 4 months earlier as a cause for this bogus riot. So we have four men dead and an innocent man harrassed by authorities for expressing his freedom of speech by the administration.

    Just where did the idea of a video come from? Was it the cracker jack Intelligence Director Clapper? The one who is known for the blunders in the Bush administration and the morning talk show interview where he didn't know of the terrorists who had been arrested in Great Britain the night before and had to be briefed by an aide on live tv?

    Obama is going around giving speeaches telling his followers that Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is weakened. The plot would thicken if we thought that this cover up would weaken his tactics of spouting his "accomplishments" and finding that Al Qaeda is certainly not weakened, but 9/11 has shown to us that all of the riots in Northern Africa and all over the Middle East were not spontaneous, but well planned and organized for us to remember and and possibly be forewarned that they are ready to take us on once again.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content