Clinton and Susan Rice need to resign, immediately. They both deliberately lied to the public about the cause of the attack. They have zero credibility. And the State Dept. ignored repeated requests for more security in Benghazi. Clinton is responsible. http://www.therightscoop.com/cbs-ne...t-told-them-to-stop-asking-for-more-security/ Romney has to bring this up at the debate.
I hope Romney brings it up too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/cnn-journal-libya
Leave it to the state department to attack CNN for perhaps the only good piece of journalism they've done in recent memory. Incredible.
It's an unfortunate world for democracy when every single democratic election resolves into a choice between the lesser of two evils, and the idea of a "greater good" is pretty much irrelevant.
U.S. officer got no reply to requests for more security in Benghazi http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-libya-usa-idUSBRE89815N20121009
So the White House apparently just said in a press conference call that there was no protest at all. Streets were calm at 8:30 or so and then at 9 something they see armed men invade the embassy. Edit: I am stunned at the lack of interest in this story...
but Carl Herrera still has links to stories about this guy who made an offensive youtube video. Shouldn't that be our focus? The Obama administration says that should be our focus, so I think you must be confused.
This is something that should be discussed. In my view, I don't think their has been any attempt by the Obama Administration to "cover-up" anything related to this disaster. If they were trying then they did a horrible job. The Administration did admit the day after the attack that what happened was an act of terror. Did they say it was a terrorist attack, as in coordinated actions carried out by known terrorist actors? No. Why? Because they didn't know and still can't definitively say that was the case. The main question is still whether this was a coordinated attack by individuals associated with al-Qai'da in the Islamic Maghreb. If so, how did this intel failure occur? How was the annex compromised so easily, and who within Libya's services knew about its location? These are the questions that need to be answered, and what the President should be called to task for. http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17438780&sid=76 http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
That makes no sense. Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton claimed this was not a planned attack and it occurred during a protest of some youtube video 'spontaneously' . There was no protest. They lied. They claimed they had no prior knowledge. Twice, over the past few months, the State Department was asked by security officers at the embassy to provide more security. How can you say they weren't covering something up? This is very black and white. You are just playing dumb because you don't want this to be true.
The answer is in the same link: House Republicans voted to reduce embassy security funding by about half a billion dollars below the amount requested by the Obama administration since 2010. The Democratic-led Senate had been able to restore "a small portion" of these funds, the memo said.
This is an inadequate explanation. The fact that there is reduced embassy security funding means there is less security overall and one would expect that this was distributed in a risk-based fashion - i.e. more cuts for safer areas, less cuts for more dangerous areas. When someone then requests additional security due to credible threats, security should and can be increased. When you are in a shell of a country during the Arab spring with a recent history of attempted terrorist attacks and you request additional security... you better get it, even if there is not another dime left in the world to pay for it. If this was a valid reason, make sure to tell the embassy staff that they can expect f***-all if there is a heightened security threat. See how that goes.
Something I think people hear should know if they really are interested. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will be holding hearings today about Benghazi at 12:00 EST if you're interested. Maybe it's on CSPAN, but here's a live stream that will show up at here. If you won't, I'll probably post my own observations about it.
The administration did not admit it was a terror attack to the public the next day. They spent the next day slamming Romney for trying to turn the death of an ambassador into political points. They claimed it was a protest that got out of hand. Obama referenced the video at the memorial service for the ambassador. He gave a speech where he stressed how important it was that this was not about America or our policies, it was a violent reaction to someone's careless words. Clinton referenced the video in her speech. The same day that Clinton was calling this a protest over the video that spontaneously led to an attack on the embassy, the Libyan PM was on tv saying that was a lie and that it was a planned terrorist attack. Susan Rice then made the rounds and continued the protest over the video meme on the weekend shows. Heck, because of the administration's words and actions, the big conversation here and in the media was whether free speech needed to be limited in reaction to this. Should the video maker be culpable in the death of the ambassador? We now know that during that time they already knew the attack had nothing to do with the video and that there was no protest outside the embassy. They knew this was an armed group invading the embassy in a coordinated matter with sophisticated weapons and strategy. I'll say this though, the Obama admin was brilliant. They faked it long enough. The initial news cycle was "Protest over video attacking Muslims leads to death of ambassador." Most people didn't care and instead of questioning the admin they went after Romney and his "gaffe." Now that the truth has come out it isn't going to register with people and the media won't give it the attention it deserves.
Free the film maker now! You libtards still blaming the video for what happened in Benghazi? B Costanza is so done. I can guarantee you guys this: US diplomats all over the globe will be voting for Romney because they don't want to die if B Costanza is reelected.
So you are soft on crime? Figures. The film maker was never arrested for any kind violation of speech but for violating parole.
I think it's obvious now that it was a screw-up; in hindsight, they should have provided more security. But, I think it's a bridge too far to go on and say Obama shouldn't be re-elected or someone in the Cabinet should be sacked over it. I know they have trade-offs to make, with a limited budget and limited security personnel and probably many demands. Somebody made a bad call and people died. There was a miscommunication, or someone didn't take the warnings seriously enough, or they took a calculated gamble and lost. For departments that function abroad, that probably happens with some regularity. They screwed up with Fast and Furious too. Bush screwed up with Iraq. Hitler screwed up at Dunkirk. It happens. That's not to say there should be no accountability, just that going nuclear on this-or-that high official is likely an out of proportion and poorly-aimed attempt to discipline the error.
