U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (4 Viewers)

[Fennis]

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi

Great to see taking control,of their destiny. Do you watch Survivors? It helps to figure out the alliances.

"Mohamed al-Magariaf, president of Libya's General National Congress, thanked the protesters for helping evict "armed groups. He also said the Rufallah al-Sihati brigade was actually "under the command of -- and committed to -- the national authority," the case appeared to be one of mistaken identity. Magariaf asked demonstrators to stop their activities and go home."

 

[Radio Free Homer]

So the Malaysian protestors gave a letter to the US embassy demanding that the makers of the movie be given "maximum sentences."On a not as funny note, a protestor in that group had a sign warning Obama that Americans were going to die and that they shouldn't be blamed because Obama started it.Nice rational people there.

Jesus, you're just horrible.

 

[fatness]

These stories seemed so salacious that I ignored them, even though the raping piece has seen some main-stream media play and I referenced it. There is also more casual reporting by the main-stream press that his body was dragged through the streets; juxtapose that with Hillary's comments and you have a Secretary of State (and Administration) that looks clueless.

Well no, you didn't ignore them. You posted about them to score your political points, depending on people not to check you.

Sorry Sweeney, I don't see it that way. This story is growing as we speak and the President hasn't skipped a beat campaigning; I think it is disgraceful. You imply that I am making some unfair political attack but I have watched the Administration try to spin this story, and speak in finite terms about it, when their statement don't have merit; they invite the criticism. Their claim of a "spontaneous uprising over a movie clip" has been disproved; the Ambassador being carried through the streets to a hospital is being challenged with reports of him being tortured (and maybe even raped) to death; the news of the suspected leader of this attack was released from gitmo (under the Bush Administration); all while he is visiting Jay-Z and Letterman, I think sends the wrong message

Sorry, you don't get to walk away from this. Anyone following the story knows that the completely unsubstantiated "rape" report was circulated earlier, by right wing repeaters, and that the video (and translation) of the ambassador being taken to the hospital became public after that. You reverse the order in your version, depending on people not to check. You also mention the "rape" thing likes it's new and suddenly is part of a growing problem, when in fact it's been known that there was no basis for the "rape" thing for some time now.

Basically you're lying and depending on people not to check you.

Why the hell would I care if someone checks what I post out, I do not have a vested interest in this

Member name Postspittstownkiller 107

 

[fatness]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Why the hell would I care if someone checks what I post out, I do not have a vested interest in this

Member name Postspittstownkiller 107

It is a topic that interests me. Your reply does not contradict my statement.

 

[HellToupee]

CNN finds, returns journal belonging to late U.S. ambassador(CNN) -- Three days after he was killed, CNN found a journal belonging to late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. The journal was found on the floor of the largely unsecured consulate compound where he was fatally wounded.CNN notified Stevens' family about the journal within hours after it was discovered and at the family's request provided it to them via a third party.The journal consists of just seven pages of handwriting in a hard-bound book.A source familiar with Stevens' thinking told CNN earlier this week that, in the months leading up to his death, the late ambassador worried about what he called the security threats in Benghazi and a rise in Islamic extremism.Stevens died on September 11, along with three other Americans, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.The California-born Stevens joined the Peace Corps and attended law school before joining the Foreign Service, the career diplomatic corps, in 1991, according to his State Department biography.He spent most of his career in the Middle East and North Africa, including postings to Israel, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, in addition to serving as the deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Libya from 2007 to 2009, during the rule of Moammar Gadhafi, according to the State Department.In May, one year after arriving aboard a cargo ship to work with those involved in the upstart rebellion, Stevens was appointed U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Posted Sep 23, 2012 4:34pm EDTOn Saturday night, State Department spokesperson Philipe Reines slammed CNN for its “disgusting” handling of Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ diary. The diary helped confirm, as the network reported, that Stevens had been worried about the threat of an Al Qaeda attack, and even feared his own name was included on a hit list.The blockbuster news contradicted the line the State Department and the administration had been pushing since the horrible tragedy took place almost two weeks ago: that there was no intelligence of a coming attack. In fact, the Ambassador himself was aware of a persistent high level threat against him.“Perhaps the real question here,” CNN responded to the State Department criticism, “Is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”That is the real question, and State Department’s bizarre criticism of CNN gives clues to the answer. Foggy Bottom is now in full-on damage control mode, with the primary goal of keeping Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Libya — and in Washington — intact.The election-year focus on President Barack Obama meant that the White House had at first been catching most of the heat for the tragedy in Benghazi. It’s certainly true the explanations from White House spokesman Jay Carney and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have strained common sense — mainly, the idea that the attack could be blamed solely on an anti-Islamic video, and that there was a protest outside the consulate at 10 p.m. (there reportedly wasn’t,) among other misleading details. That initial story has crumbled, and it took Robert Gibbs to get the Obama administration back on message on the Sunday shows today.But in reality, the fiasco appears to be largely — if not entirely — a State Department botch. It was the State Department that failed to provide its ambassador adequate security; it was the State Department that fled Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack, apparently failing to clear or secure the scene, leaving Stevens' diary behind; and it was State that had taken the lead on the ground after the Libya intervention.“When it comes to specific critiques about the attack, if either [the White House or State] should be getting blamed, it seems to me the primary one to be getting blamed should be State itself more than the [White House],” says one former State Department official with extensive experience in the region. “I mean if you take away the 'buck stops here' parsing of this stuff, if Stevens was issuing warning or expressing concerns he was doing so primarily through his own chain of command. The security on the ground belongs to State.”And though the Department of State savaged CNN for reporting on the diary, BuzzFeed has learned that the department wasn’t even aware that Stevens' personal diary existed before the cable channel told them about it.“I can't speak to the question of whether Amb[assador] Stevens had ever told family, friends or close colleagues he was keeping a journal, I just don't know,” State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emailed BuzzFeed. “But were we aware as a State team that a journal existed that had not been return/recovered with the body? The answer is 'no.'"The State Department also denies that any classified information was compromised at the site. But considering the department's claim that it wasn't even aware of the possibility of an attack and other critical information concerning the assault, it's an assertion that should be greeted with skepticism.That spokesperson Philipe Reines now jumped into the fray in such a public way shows just how much pressure Clinton is feeling. Reines, a longtime and aggressive Clinton loyalist, has served for nearly four years in Foggy Bottom exclusively to protect and promote Clinton’s image. All press requests that have anything —anything at all — to do with Clinton must go through him, according to State Department officials who work with him, a break in precedent from previous secretaries of state.“He’s always positioning Hillary for next big thing,” as one official told me last year.Reines' personal involvement in responding to CNN this weekend — deflecting the blame of the department’s failure to secure the personal effects of a fallen ambassador to a cable network — can be read as more or less an expression of Hillary Clinton’s id.There is a tragic human cost to what happened: the unbearable pain and grief the family and friends of the four Americans, compounded by intense media scrutiny and competing cover-your-### agendas within the U.S. government. To publish material against a grieving family’s wishes is a tough call. But in this case, CNN behaved responsibly, and was clearly within any reasonable journalistic standards. Some of the best reporting out of Libya so far has been from CNN’s Arwa Damon —the network’s veteran no-bull#### war correspondent, fluent in Arabic, who is one the best in the business.Behind the trauma of what happened, however, there are huge questions of politics, policy, and legacy at stake.On politics, the crass question has been whether what happened in Libya will hurt Obama’s re-election chances. And despite administration officials' delivering inaccurate information, it’s unlikely to have much of an impact. Obama’s polling on national security issues has been solid, and unless the situation continues to unravel in headline grabbing ways, or Mitt Romney manages to make it a centerpiece of a debate, it may well be swept away with the rest of foreign news before November.But on policy, what happened in Benghazi raises serious concerns about the actual success of the Libya intervention. It’s not a slam dunk, as previously advertised by Clinton. (“We came, we saw, he died,” she said upon hearing news of Qaddaffi's death.)As one senior U.S. government official who’d visited Libya told me earlier this summer: “It’s not Iraq, but it’s not good, either.”The question of legacy — who gets the credit for Libya, who gets the blame — has been a contested space between the White House and the State Department from the beginning. It was in Ryan Lizza’s story in the New Yorker — a story that captured a distinctly State Department perspective — where the infamous anti-Obama “leading from behind” quote originated. The piece also laid the groundwork for the narrative of Clinton's rock star-like revival, though it was at the expense of the president. The New Yorker story was published months before Qaddaffi had fallen, and in glow of the conflict’s aftermath and perceived success among the foreign policy community, State Department officials tried to paint Libya as a Clintonian initiative. (Exhibit A: posing for a Time cover.) The White House, meanwhile, tried to make it clear that President Obama was the true driving force behind the intervention.Now Clinton’s tenure at Secretary of State is winding down while Obama’s re-election campaign intensifies. With the stunning revelations in the Ambassador's personal diary, the continued failure to get the Libya story straight, and Team Clinton’s over-the-top response to any questioning of the official narrative, Clinton’s State Department legacy is at risk of being permanently tarnished.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

Link

 

[Fennis]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

Link

My link

 

[Chadstroma]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

Link

My link

I know that is suppose to be like a touching photo moment but it creeps the heck out of me.

 

[Chadstroma]

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi

That is more than The more that that part of the world starts to stand up against these extremists, the better off we will be, not to mention the better off they will be.

 

[Fennis]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

Link

My link

I know that is suppose to be like a touching photo moment but it creeps the heck out of me.

explanation

 

[Chadstroma]

I already texted Obama on how to be POTUS but he is too proud and stubborn to follow my step-by-step instructions.

Please post them.

Link

My link

I know that is suppose to be like a touching photo moment but it creeps the heck out of me.

explanation

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, ok. I thought it was one of those private Presidential photographer shots (like JFK Jr playing in the desk in the Oval Office type thing).

 

[jamny]

 

[Short Corner]

Decrying attack, protesters overtake Islamist group's HQ in Benghazi

That is more than The more that that part of the world starts to stand up against these extremists, the better off we will be, not to mention the better off they will be.

So what is it when we are the ones enabling the extremists to come into power?

 

[Sam Quentin]

Why were we lied to about the cause of the attack?

Why didn't the administration take any steps to protect the ambassador in light of the threats?

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Why were we lied to about the cause of the attack?Why didn't the administration take any steps to protect the ambassador in light of the threats?

The MSM doesn't seem to want to focus on this and it's pathetic.

 

[RBM]

Amazing how this has been buried. A terrorist attack on 9/11 is bad enough. But then being lied to by this admin....how is this not a massive story?

 

[jamny]

A week later and the White House still has no answers?

Still blaming the video? Let's just ignore it and hope it goes away quietly.

Have fun with Jay-Z and Beyonce tonight Mr. President.

Jammy and Sammy must've slept through the 14th I guess. It's not like he snuck them there in the middle of the night, he made a freaking formal declaration to Congress. Way to keep track of urgent events, or was that one of Rush's talking points today for you guys to parrot?

yeah, no ####. And that'll be the end of it. Meanwhile, days after they made arrests of people involved. What happened to them? This was a coordinated attack with help on the inside yet our government is only now leaving open the possibility that it wasn't about the video. I hope I'm wrong but I think not much more will come of this. Too close to the election. Obama's got a schedule to keep, partying in NY and going on Letterman. and no, I don't listen to Rush or Hannity

Sorry, I didn't know that sending in troops was "ignoring" it. I highly doubt any investigative work they do will be made public until after. I find the idea that nothing is being done to be utterly ludicrous. CIA, undercover military etc aren't sitting on their asses. Just something for you to harp about without anything to back it up.

Is it still "just something to harp about" three weeks later or does it look like this is being ignored until after the election?

 

[jamny]

Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An "Enemy Of The American People"

Hammers both sides along with the media.

The party of the corrupt vs. the party of the stupid

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, "ObamaNation: A Day of Truth," former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, "I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy."

Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from "organized governmental power," they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was lied about for nine days, because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.

"We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers."

Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

A week later and the White House still has no answers?

Still blaming the video? Let's just ignore it and hope it goes away quietly.

Have fun with Jay-Z and Beyonce tonight Mr. President.

Jammy and Sammy must've slept through the 14th I guess. It's not like he snuck them there in the middle of the night, he made a freaking formal declaration to Congress. Way to keep track of urgent events, or was that one of Rush's talking points today for you guys to parrot?

yeah, no ####. And that'll be the end of it. Meanwhile, days after they made arrests of people involved. What happened to them? This was a coordinated attack with help on the inside yet our government is only now leaving open the possibility that it wasn't about the video. I hope I'm wrong but I think not much more will come of this. Too close to the election. Obama's got a schedule to keep, partying in NY and going on Letterman. and no, I don't listen to Rush or Hannity

Sorry, I didn't know that sending in troops was "ignoring" it. I highly doubt any investigative work they do will be made public until after. I find the idea that nothing is being done to be utterly ludicrous. CIA, undercover military etc aren't sitting on their asses. Just something for you to harp about without anything to back it up.

Is it still "just something to harp about" three weeks later or does it look like this is being ignored until after the election?

When did sending troops become synonymous with it being ignored?Also this.

The US military's secret Joint Special Operations Command has reportedly begun preparing "target packages" – lists of suspected militants to present to the White House – in response to the September 11 attack, which killed US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The claim comes as the US State Department was accused by Republicans in Congress of turning down repeated security requests from US diplomats in Libya who believed the lightly-guarded site was a vulnerable target.

While the US has deployed extra marines to embassies across the region it has not yet responded militarily to the killings in Benghazi.

The New York Times reported that the Pentagon and CIA are in the process of gathering targeting information on members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb – the north African branch of the jihadist network – and on Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamist militant group known to operate in Benghazi.

US intelligence had previously intercepted conversations where Ansar al-Sharia fighters are heard boasting to al-Qaeda members about their role in the attack.

The lists of potential targets would be presented to the White House before a final decision to strike is made by President Barack Obama.

While a successful operation would boost Mr Obama's credibility on national security issues his advisers will also weigh the risk that a failed raid – especially one involving American casualties – could make the administration appear impotent in its response.

The Libyan government meanwhile said that it had reached an agreement with the FBI that would allow American investigators to visit the site of the attack.

Republicans yesterday wrote to Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, demanding details of any requests for more security from diplomats in Libya.

"Multiple US federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the US mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi," Congressmen Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz, the Republican leaders of a powerful oversight committee, said. "The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."

A spokesman for Mrs Clinton said she was preparing a formal response to the letter and was willing to co-operate "closely" with Congress as it investigates the attack.

Mr Issa has scheduled a committee hearing on October 10 where he is expected to provide more details of the allegations.

Other Republicans have demanded that Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, resign after she initially said that the consulate attack had been a spontaneous event that originated out of a peaceful protest against an anti-Islamic film made in California.

The administration later admitted that the assault appeared to be the work of well-coordinated militants.

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Pat Caddell: Media Have Become An "Enemy Of The American People"

Hammers both sides along with the media.

The party of the corrupt vs. the party of the stupid

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, "ObamaNation: A Day of Truth," former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said, "I think we're at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy."

Caddell noted that while First Amendment protections were originally provided to the press so they would protect the liberty and freedom of the public from "organized governmental power," they had clearly relinquished the role of impartial news providers.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the tragic death of a U.S. ambassador in Libya that was lied about for nine days, because the press and the administration did not want to admit it was a terrorist attack.

"We've had nine days of lies over what happened because they can't dare say it's a terrorist attack, and the press won't push this," said Caddell. "Yesterday there was not a single piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty American embassies, yesterday, are under attack. None of that is on the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers."

Caddell added that it is one thing for the news to have a biased view, but "It is another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American people information they have a right to know."

In recent remarks to an AIM conference, "ObamaNation: A Day of Truth," former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell said,

 

[jamny]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

I find the admins talk of the events, inconsequential.

 

[jamny]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

I find the admins talk of the events, inconsequential.

And that's fine, for you.I personally would like an explanation from my President about what happened there. I'm not saying he has to divulge what he plans on doing but how about clearing the air and giving us the details instead of allowing the confusion over the course of events and the conflict of opinions from various members of his party. Was a mistake made? Own up to it! Don't just sweep it under the rug.

You can bet if there was a successful prevention of the attack, every last detail would have been spelled out by now. Probably already be a documentary highlighting the success in time for the election. A campaign add at the very least.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

I find the admins talk of the events, inconsequential.

And that's fine, for you.I personally would like an explanation from my President about what happened there. I'm not saying he has to divulge what he plans on doing but how about clearing the air and giving us the details instead of allowing the confusion over the course of events and the conflict of opinions from various members of his party. Was a mistake made? Own up to it! Don't just sweep it under the rug.

You can bet if there was a successful prevention of the attack, every last detail would have been spelled out by now. Probably already be a documentary highlighting the success in time for the election. A campaign add at the very least.

On such events, including national defense at our diplomatic compounds and our Embasssy relations with the host nations, divulging of all information to the general public works against our best American interests.They did "clear the air" and stated some information, and look what happened. It became a political landmine that the right uses as an attack and does nothing else. Nothing else.

 

[Sam Quentin]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

I find the admins talk of the events, inconsequential.

And that's fine, for you.I personally would like an explanation from my President about what happened there. I'm not saying he has to divulge what he plans on doing but how about clearing the air and giving us the details instead of allowing the confusion over the course of events and the conflict of opinions from various members of his party. Was a mistake made? Own up to it! Don't just sweep it under the rug.

You can bet if there was a successful prevention of the attack, every last detail would have been spelled out by now. Probably already be a documentary highlighting the success in time for the election. A campaign add at the very least.

On such events, including national defense at our diplomatic compounds and our Embasssy relations with the host nations, divulging of all information to the general public works against our best American interests.They did "clear the air" and stated some information, and look what happened. It became a political landmine that the right uses as an attack and does nothing else. Nothing else.

How do yuou feel about giving specifuc dates for US troop drawdowna?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But no lets just start invading them and destroying their country in a HUGE rush to judgement - not like we haven't done that before.

So you're satisfied with what you've heard so far from this administration and the President himself about the events leading up to, during and after the attack on the embassy?

I find the admins talk of the events, inconsequential.

And that's fine, for you.I personally would like an explanation from my President about what happened there. I'm not saying he has to divulge what he plans on doing but how about clearing the air and giving us the details instead of allowing the confusion over the course of events and the conflict of opinions from various members of his party. Was a mistake made? Own up to it! Don't just sweep it under the rug.

You can bet if there was a successful prevention of the attack, every last detail would have been spelled out by now. Probably already be a documentary highlighting the success in time for the election. A campaign add at the very least.

On such events, including national defense at our diplomatic compounds and our Embasssy relations with the host nations, divulging of all information to the general public works against our best American interests.They did "clear the air" and stated some information, and look what happened. It became a political landmine that the right uses as an attack and does nothing else. Nothing else.

How do you feel about giving specific dates for US troop downdraft?

They wouldn't even have to tell me, if they were to actually act and do it.

 

[pantherclub]

This is such a non event

 

[Sam Quentin]

This is such a non event

terrorist attacks on US diplomats happen all of the time?This is a big story in the larger tapestry of US middle-east policy over the last 4, 12, 35 and 65 years.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.

If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

 

[Stinger Ray]

This is such a non event

 

[hook014]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

First, it's doubtful in the extreme that security decisions like these make it all the way to the White House. If they do, someone's not doing their job at State.Secondly, and I've seen this for some time now, when you criticize a someone relentlessly over every action or perceived inaction over a period of years, people start to tune you out. Even if you now have a credible complaint, it gets logged in with all the ridiculous stuff you've been saying for years. If at this stage of your life you can't process the lessons of the boy who cried wolf god help you. And worse, from your point of view, is they start defending the man you criticize!! How can this happen? Don't they see?? Well, they see a whole lot of unfair accusations and they don't like a bully. Who does? They weren't even in his camp until they felt the almost constant need to set the record straight. And why is it constant? Because the criticism is relentless. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.Historically we're in very new territory here with regards to communication in general and Fox news in particular. I won't argue for a second that there hasn't been a liberal bias in MSM for as many decades as I can remember (4). But until conservative media outlets start learning to be more subtle (they will) and moderate (I hope) the constant drumbeat of j'accuse sounds the same. They ask way too much of their casual audience to separate the wheat from the chaff. When they change so will their fortunes.

 

[Max Power]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.

Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.

Its going to take time to find these people.

 

[FootballDummy]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.Its going to take time to find these people.

So this isn't Obama's fault? Kudos to you.

 

[FootballDummy]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

Is it like when they asked Codnaleeza Rice if they had intel on 9/11 going down, and she said no. And then they asked what does that folder say, and it was: Al Queda plans to attack the US with planes?

 

[pantherclub]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

Yes I am sure that is exactly what went down. Exactly.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

Yes I am sure that is exactly what went down. Exactly.

Pretty much. thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/259677-report-libya-consulate-subject-to-previous-threats-attacks

 

[RBM]

Some of you guys are just willing to defend this administration no matter how much evidence of a royal #### up is smacking you right in your ridiculous faces. Impossible to even discuss anything seriously.

 

[pittstownkiller]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

 

[Max Power]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

The FBI will be in Benghazi before the week is out. Security/logistic issues probbably delayed the insertion. I think you guys are watching too many movies if you think the US is just going to send a team of super FBI agents to solve crimes and kill bad guys. We have to make sure the area is safe/secure prior to putting these people on the ground.Otherwise its this administrations fault for putting civilians in harms way... Its like no matter what, someone is doing something wrong...

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

 

[RBM]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

Not specific decision making, but in terms of setting priorities the Commander in Chief is ultimately accountable. It doesn't seen unreasonable that on the anniversary of 9/11 he or his office would want to ensure that as much security is in place for our installations around the world as possible. That said, we know that there are constant threats being made and low-level security issues that create a large amount of noise in the system. Particularly in the Middle East, and our ability to support in diplomatic envoys is limited. Much more fact gathering is needed before people should be making assumptions either way right now.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Oof. Now it's being reported that there were multiple requests for more security due to several attacks and incidents the previous two months but that the White House denied the requests.If that's true, this should be the lead story in every media outlet in the country. It won't be, but it should.

Is it like when they asked Codnaleeza Rice if they had intel on 9/11 going down, and she said no. And then they asked what does that folder say, and it was: Al Queda plans to attack the US with planes?

even worse - it was "Bin Laden really really really would like to attack US targets"

 

[RBM]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi/

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

http://www.wired.com...12/10/benghazi/

If that report is true, then the State Department really needs to answer for this. I'm still skeptical that it rises to White House level. Obviously, as Arsenal points out, Obama is ultimately responsible for whatever happens. But for me to accept your apparent premise (that Obama screwed up and that another President would have handled things differently) I would need a lot more evidence than you're presenting.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I still remember all of the criricism that was heaped on Bush for not immediately running out of a schoolrom screaming "We've been attacked!"

 

[timschochet]

I still remember all of the criricism that was heaped on Bush for not immediately running out of a schoolrom screaming "We've been attacked!"

That criticism was idiotic and completely partisan. Which makes it a good analogy. Do you feel the same about this?