Libya Questions

[flacaltenn]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

Because those were NOT CUTS. They were part of the "dead on arrival" Obama budget that wanted to RAISE State funding beyond reason.. Literally NO ONE voted for those INCREASED levels of funding Jack..

It's a sure bet that the level of spending for State Dept funding hasn't EVER gone DOWN in your lifetime..

 

[Vel]

Fox news NEEDS to stay on this.. Because there are questions even FOX isn't asking..

Like how did it happen that DAYS after the attack -- CNN was able to walk into into our bombed out consulate and pick up the Ambassador's diary off the floor?? WTF was keeping the site secure for an official investigation if the PRESS is trampling the scene and collecting evidence before the GOVT does?

DOD confirms there was an UNARMED drone overhead for surveillance. A Lot of the "allegations" are reasonable and confirmed. If NBC and MSNBC wants to take a pass at this story --- there are others who don't..

Tru, that's what I'm talking about. Fox news has a bad rep even for me as throwing out garbage and calling it factual. I'd like to see someone else take up these claims and investigate them. I am afraid that this is going to just wither away until after the election. BS

Would you be good enough to give example of information that FOX has called factual that wasn't? Please be specific.
This story won't whither away if ordinary Americans keep asking the questions. If you want the alphabet stations to cover it, send them story ideas on their web site comment sections or pick up the phone and call them.
Now, about that FOX disinformation?

 

[Vel]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

Why would a government leave their people there if they couldn't afford to protect them? What is it that Obama did to try and save those people rdean?

 

[rdean]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

Why would a government leave their people there if they couldn't afford to protect them? What is it that Obama did to try and save those people rdean?

What would you have done?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

The answer is, they didn't.

 

[Wiseacre]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

The answer is, they didn't.

More dems voted for that bill in the House than did the repubs. And the dem controlled Senate passed it, and Obama signed it, so I'd say both sides own some responsibility here. Besides, a senior State Dept official said that funding wasn't the issue behind the withdrawal.

And BTW, that 16 man Site Security Team was from the Utah Reserve, which is paid by the DoD. Things might've been different had they been there.

 

[daphillenium]

Well I still haven't seen a single report or article that doesn't reference anything other than the original fox news report. While at the same time the CIA has denied ever telling anyone to stand down. According to my reading They did get help they asked for and were able to secure the annex which contained sensitive information and also the rest of the staff/operatives to the airport.

This seems to me a desperate attempt to rally voters by the right before an election. The "rumors" of tapes fox news reports on that allegedly contain audio of the president denying assistance have remained rumors and no one has released any factual evidence of such and no one has come forward as witnessing this, other than unnamed sources.


http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...Pv1AQHBzdvIIEv7_O8vx2yFe8pF0iItl6vZ7X1q8g&s=1

Sorry cant get this link to show up right but if you click on it it works it's from the huff post but references the wsj.

 

[sakinago]

Hey, I'm going to stir the pot here. I've been seeing a lot on facebook and here lately of Obama and the state department ignoring and denying assistance to Benghazi. According to many posts and links the information is that we had troops that could have thwarted the attack less than an hour away and things of the sort. Also they had a live feed where they just watched our people die and did nothing.

From what I can tell so far, the only people reporting on this is faux news. Now, there have been things that Faux news reports on that other news and investigative reporters pick up on and also report on it. However, after a few days of Faux news anchors reporting on this, there still only seems to be references to Faux news original "investigation and reports."

To me, I don't see how anyone could sit there and watch it and deny assistance so I simply don't believe what faux news is reporting. It seems like they took something and put it out there without any truth to it in order to confuse and try to swing undecided voters right before their election. It seems like this is there golden ticket to the presidency. However, there hasn't been any other credible reporting on it besides fox news.

Anyway, does anyone have any credible reports besides something that references the orginal fox news investigation or emails. I did some searching and only found one article by (get this) yahoo news that had the CIA lady denying anyone every denying assitance or telling people to stand down.

Here is a question for you, why would the CIA or the Administration every admit they denied request for help? We have the evidence and the documentation that yes... during the attack request for help were made... 3 of them... and help never came. And yes, they had 2 drones (not at the same time but 1 right after the other) and feeds from the security cameras giving them real time video of the attack. These are undeniable facts...try to refute it. If that is not damning enough it is a fact that Tyrone Woods (one of the former seals who died) had the mortar team that eventually killed him laser designated for an aerial strike for a good ammount of time...because he figured there had to be some sort of help up there by then, but sadly there wasn't. I can't imagine how desperately he sat there laser designating the mortar team in vain, that had to have been the worst feeling ever.

I know you dont like how this sounds but those are cold hard facts. Watching this attack in real time it was pretty clear to see that there was no spontaneous protest over a video, even though common sense tells us that a terrorist attack on 9/11 is going to be planned. I thought it was just a huge gaff by the administration over security on the anniversary, and the attack was a quick hour or so and they had no time to help. But there is no denying that they watched the 7 hour attack in real time, and left them hung out to dry. Help was not sent...obviously

Your only issue with the facts seems to be that they come from fox news, and the administration and CIA are denying the stand down orders. Well then where was the help. CBS and NBC are not talking about it because they really are in the tank for Obama (I no longer address him as president after this situation), I never thought they'd be in the tank this much... but they are. I mean an ambassador died, and they put out hour long stories about the right halloween costume to get for your pet. Dont know what else to tell you.

 

[sakinago]

The very first question should be, "Why did Republicans cut funding for embassy security over the objections of Sec. of State Clinton"?

The answer is, they didn't.

More dems voted for that bill in the House than did the repubs. And the dem controlled Senate passed it, and Obama signed it, so I'd say both sides own some responsibility here. Besides, a senior State Dept official said that funding wasn't the issue behind the withdrawal.

And BTW, that 16 man Site Security Team was from the Utah Reserve, which is paid by the DoD. Things might've been different had they been there.

Very nice post, liberals dont seem to understand how the government works, but they are pretty quick to somehow blame the GOP for this situation.

One other thing, how the hell are you a Lions fan living in Texas?

 

[Wiseacre]

The answer is, they didn't.

More dems voted for that bill in the House than did the repubs. And the dem controlled Senate passed it, and Obama signed it, so I'd say both sides own some responsibility here. Besides, a senior State Dept official said that funding wasn't the issue behind the withdrawal.

And BTW, that 16 man Site Security Team was from the Utah Reserve, which is paid by the DoD. Things might've been different had they been there.

Very nice post, liberals dont seem to understand how the government works, but they are pretty quick to somehow blame the GOP for this situation.

One other thing, how the hell are you a Lions fan living in Texas?

Transplanted Michigander. Joined the USAF, ended up in San Antonio after 22 years, decided I liked hot weather better than cold. Got out, stayed put. Still loyal to my Lions, Tigers, Wings, and Pistons though.

 

[Serioususername]

How could the CIA NOT KNOW the story ?? It was THEIR ANNEX that came attack directly after the consulate was breached?? Think their guys weren't on the horn describing the nature of the attackers who FOLLOWED the ambassador from the consulate to the CIA Annex??

Amazingly enough, the CIA isn't a hive-mind where every tidbit of information gathered by it's various bodies is deposited for anyone to call upon at their leisure. And while I'm sure description of the folks launching the attack was a part of the information the people under attack happened to share- a doubt in the middle of a flying bullets, fires and supposed explosions they were getting detailed looks. Plus, terrorists linked to famous groups don't usually(as far as I know anyway) wear patches for easy-peezy identification as such.

It was a RUNNING GUN BATTLE. Mobs don't do running battle logistics.

I don't think you mean logistics, either way this sounds dangerously like a supposition. Why can't a mob that's armed chase down vehicles with their weapons just as much as an organized group? Rioters have done it before I'm sure, a car driving away isn't as confusing as you seem to think. Unless I'm missing your point?

THEIR STORY makes a hell of a lot more sense than YOUR story bro.

So when intelligence experts say that it can take a LONG time for accurate information to be obtained and settled- it's instead more believable that the Presidents administration magic'd up 100% correct information and simply didn't share it? People have pointed out holes in the stories before, like the CIA being unable to call in air support, etc, etc.

Anyhow, my story is one of patience. Wait for the damned investigation to be over with, where there will be actual names, and the people who were there testifying under oath and shit.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Obama had one chance to give it straight to the American people.

He lied.

 

[emilynghiem]

One other thing, how the hell are you a Lions fan living in Texas?

Texas is so big, we annex everyone and everything else within reach!

As for this issue, can anyone explain or justify blaming it on the producer of an unrelated film, where he and his family received death threats? And stirring up hype about the film where it instigated deadly riots in other countries? Isn't that also fraudulent or criminal?

In addition to whatever calls were made or not made regarding defense or security in Libya, even those things that seem easier to prove false are troubling enough. These subsequent actions also endangered lives of other people, which need not have occurred at all.

You can argue day and night about military judgments, like instigating war in Iraq after 9/11And even if the commander fails to make the right call, the military is supposed to follow those orders.

But to divert blame to an unrelated party as the cause, how do you explain that?

Is this Obama and the Democrats' karma, for criticizing Bush for the war in Iraq, claiming he lied and people died. And now it's his turn to walk in those shoes and have to explain?

 

[sakinago]

More dems voted for that bill in the House than did the repubs. And the dem controlled Senate passed it, and Obama signed it, so I'd say both sides own some responsibility here. Besides, a senior State Dept official said that funding wasn't the issue behind the withdrawal.

And BTW, that 16 man Site Security Team was from the Utah Reserve, which is paid by the DoD. Things might've been different had they been there.

Very nice post, liberals dont seem to understand how the government works, but they are pretty quick to somehow blame the GOP for this situation.

One other thing, how the hell are you a Lions fan living in Texas?

Transplanted Michigander. Joined the USAF, ended up in San Antonio after 22 years, decided I liked hot weather better than cold. Got out, stayed put. Still loyal to my Lions, Tigers, Wings, and Pistons though.

Figured something like that, Im a transplanted cowboys fan from fort worth behind enemy lines in philly. Freaking eagles fans suck.

 

[ZagZagel]

I just started reading this board tonight, came across this thread and thought I would clear up a few things.

First off even though Susan Rice clearly had some of her facts wrong, she never said that a spontaneous mob was responsible for the attacks but that protests were used as cover for a violent extremist group:

Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

Again, she did have some facts wrong(and she repeatedly qualified what she said as"the best information we have at present") , but she never said the attack itself was a spontaneous act by protesters, but an opportunistic attack by extremists. Taking into account what people who were there have said (check Serioususername's link) it's not that unbelievable that less than 5 days later there was still uncertainty as to whether or not there was a protest outside because A.) that is what the attackers were trying to portray\create and B.) their were protests taking place across the entire region.

According to CBS, the president was not notified until about an hour and twenty minutes after the attack started(sec of state Clinton was notified around 20 mins after it started), by that point Sean Smith was dead, ambassador Stevens was very likely dead, and the surviving staff was being moved to the annex. The armored vehicles were followed and small arms fire was traded. When they arrived at the annex it did come under sporadic small arms\rpg fire but security fought back and the attackers were dispersed. Around that time a special operations team in Europe was deployed but failed to make it there in time. For around 4 hours all was quiet\the streets were empty. Then the mortar attacks which killed our soldiers started, they landed 3 direct hits then left, the entire attack lasted only 11 minutes. At that point the remaining staff left the annex in armored vehicles for the airport.

As far as the ability to watch the attack unfold is concerned, the drones were over a completely different part of Libya and the first one didn't arrive at Benghazi until well over three hours later. The only live feed that existed on the ground at the consulate was a single microphone in one building of the compound, next to useless for real time monitoring of the situation, or for giving any information on a potential demonstration outside.

Could the situation have been handled better? absolutely. Is their any indication that there was some sort of dereliction or cover up on the Presidents part? I just don't see it.

Since i can't post hot links here's a few cold ones
cbs's timeline of what happened:
cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57544719/timeline-how-benghazi-attack-probe-unfolded/

full transcript of sec Rice interview:
msnbc.msn.com/id/49051097/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/september-benjamin-netanyahu-susan-rice-keith-ellison-peter-king-bob-woodward-jeffrey-goldberg-andrea-mitchell/#.UJTN8YZPJkh

 

[ZagZagel]

I almost forgot in reference to the media not covering this properly. Rachel Maddow, the journalist the right loves to hate, laid out very clearly 2 days later on her sept 13th show that this was an organized extremist attack.

And by that night, by the night of September 11th this week, we had
what appears to an organized military style, sustained, sophisticated,
complex attack on the same consulate again and this time they killed the
American ambassador and three other Americans. As we learn more about that
attack, the idea that this was a protest gone wrong, that it was a
grassroots angry mob that overran this facility, that seems less and less
likely. It was a sustained attack that took place over more than four
hours. We`re now told it involved two different locations -- the original
consulate building and another supposedly safe site to which consulate
personnel were removed.

Transcript of the entire show:
msnbc.msn.com/id/49033879/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-thursday-september-th/#.UJS-xIZPJkg

 

[sakinago]

I almost forgot in reference to the media not covering this properly. Rachel Maddow, the journalist the right loves to hate, laid out very clearly 2 days later on her sept 13th show that this was an organized extremist attack.

And by that night, by the night of September 11th this week, we had
what appears to an organized military style, sustained, sophisticated,
complex attack on the same consulate again and this time they killed the
American ambassador and three other Americans. As we learn more about that
attack, the idea that this was a protest gone wrong, that it was a
grassroots angry mob that overran this facility, that seems less and less
likely. It was a sustained attack that took place over more than four
hours. We`re now told it involved two different locations -- the original
consulate building and another supposedly safe site to which consulate
personnel were removed.

Transcript of the entire show:
msnbc.msn.com/id/49033879/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-thursday-september-th/#.UJS-xIZPJkg

So if Rachel Maddow understood what was going on, and the Whitehouse had a live feed of the attack, then why did the Administration talk about a protest and a video for 2 extra weeks? Why would the Libyian President in the interview right after the attack, say to everyone that what the president was saying was wrong. He did not have the intelligence we have or the live feeds our whitehouse saw, but he had common sense and knew that an attack like this on 9/11 does not happen spontaneously.

 

[Wiseacre]

Very nice post, liberals dont seem to understand how the government works, but they are pretty quick to somehow blame the GOP for this situation.

One other thing, how the hell are you a Lions fan living in Texas?

Transplanted Michigander. Joined the USAF, ended up in San Antonio after 22 years, decided I liked hot weather better than cold. Got out, stayed put. Still loyal to my Lions, Tigers, Wings, and Pistons though.

Figured something like that, Im a transplanted cowboys fan from fort worth behind enemy lines in philly. Freaking eagles fans suck.

Fight the good fight my man.

 

[midcan5]

This video in link below perfectly demonstrates the level of intelligent commentary on Fox. I'm sorry but you gotta be a bit dense to watch this station. But of course in America density may be a free choice for some people. Fox watchers mostly. Fox News FAILs of 2011: List of Fox News Errors, Mistakes and Gaffes

That Hilarious List of Corrections from SNL's 'Fox & Friends' Sketch

LIST OF FOX & FRIENDS ERRORS ON SNL:
• There are currently no bills before the House that would require a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before buying sunglasses.
• The Taliban is not producing a cereal called “Honey Bunches of Goats.”
• Kirk Cameron is not the voice of Siri.
• Miss America is not third in the order of succession for the Presidency, nor is Miss Teen USA fourth.
• Airplanes do not fly by flapping their wings.
• Patricia Heaton did not win a Nobel Prize for her work on “Everybody Loves Raymond.”
• Hail consists of frozen water; it is not “made of sins.”
• President Obama does not plan to take the forwarding option away from e-mail.
• Disney World is not planning to add Rush Limbaugh to their Hall of Presidents.
• Nowhere in the Bible does it mention Garth Brooks or Chris Gaines.
• Turtles do not have “tiny TV’s and sofa beds” inside their shells.
• Pete Rose did not receive a lifetime ban from the Hallmark Hall of Fame.
• “National Treasure” is not a documentary even though it feels very real.
• Wisconsin is an American state and not “just a bit.”
• Mormons breathe air.
• Horses do not have “teeth so sharp you wouldn’t even believe it.”
• Children raised by same-sex couples are not statistically more likely to let the American flag touch the ground,
• “Psych” is a popular detective show on the USA Network, not a super-secret NASA Mind experiment.
• It takes more than five to six months of medical school to become a surgeon.
• Sour Patch Kids are a snack food and therefore physically incapable of pulling a knife on someone.
• Congress has not declared a war on jean shorts.
• It is unlikely that Fareed Zakaria is Willem Defoe in character.2
• Babies tend to like hugs.
• It is not illegal to discard a Christmas tree.
• John Wilkes Booth was not wearing a hooded sweatshirt when he shot President Lincoln, nor were the Lincoln’s attending a staging of “The Vagina Monologues.”
• There is no federal program called “Cash for Bees.”
• You do not need a spaceship to get to China.
• The Watergate is a hotel in Washington D.C., not a portal to an undersea kingdom.
• The new World Trade Center does not transform into a karate robot.1
• Seeing-eye dogs are neither able to nor allowed to drive.
• It is likely that immigrants do not feed on the blood of our cattle at night while we are all sleeping.React to this
• Baseball is a land sport.
• It is widely accepted that ears are used for hearing.

Read more at That Hilarious List of Corrections from SNL's 'Fox & Friends' Sketch

 

[HUGGY]

Hey, I'm going to stir the pot here. I've been seeing a lot on facebook and here lately of Obama and the state department ignoring and denying assistance to Benghazi. According to many posts and links the information is that we had troops that could have thwarted the attack less than an hour away and things of the sort. Also they had a live feed where they just watched our people die and did nothing.

From what I can tell so far, the only people reporting on this is faux news. Now, there have been things that Faux news reports on that other news and investigative reporters pick up on and also report on it. However, after a few days of Faux news anchors reporting on this, there still only seems to be references to Faux news original "investigation and reports."

To me, I don't see how anyone could sit there and watch it and deny assistance so I simply don't believe what faux news is reporting. It seems like they took something and put it out there without any truth to it in order to confuse and try to swing undecided voters right before their election. It seems like this is there golden ticket to the presidency. However, there hasn't been any other credible reporting on it besides fox news.

Anyway, does anyone have any credible reports besides something that references the orginal fox news investigation or emails. I did some searching and only found one article by (get this) yahoo news that had the CIA lady denying anyone every denying assitance or telling people to stand down.

Rupert Murdoch in conjunction with other media outlets sued for the absolute right to lie to the public. That is obviously THEIR purpose in broadcasting. Why would anyone waste their time viewing programing that has as it's foundation in the right to lie?